Diary of a Sutton Councillor

49 Comments »

  1. I see 6 elderly people signing in the biggest picture. MacDonalds generally caters for young people. I wonder if any of those pictured have ever actually been into one or if they have been persuaded they are evil places ?

    Comment by Steve Lewis | June 10, 2013 | Reply

    • 8 branches within a couple of miles of the proposed location,ridiculous overkill and I am in Rosemount Tower, I really don’t want to be looking at/hearing it day and night, for once let’s say no to a Corporation.

      Comment by Mac Baker | June 10, 2013 | Reply

      • We all have to look at Rosemount Tower day and night, which is hardly an architectural masterpiece and is only in existence because the objections of local residents were overcome. I dont suppose people dining at the MacDonalds will be very impressed with the view either.

        Comment by Steve Lewis | June 11, 2013

    • Judging by his comments, on this blog, I presume Steve Lewis has some kind of vested interest in McDonalds to hold such views. If he’d have bothered to come down on Saturday, he would have seen that the majority of the over 650 people who signed the petition certainly weren’t “elderly” – and who mentioned “evil”!

      Comment by Alan Fitter | June 11, 2013 | Reply

      • I stated my views as I am entitled to do. How on earth can anyone have a vested interest in MacDonalds. ? How does one even buy shares ? To be accused of having a stake in MacDonalds’ future disrespects me. I venture to suggest Mr Fitter may be concerned residential property prices could be affected and as such has his own vested interest. I commented on the picture which is what it is, 6 elderly people signing a petition. Indeed I was in Wallington on Saturday and I saw a small pressure group making an unneccessary fuss to attract others to their self serving cause. Stafford Road is a secondary high street and as such is a retail area. It needs the investment, footfall and employment generated by vibrant businesses. No doubt many would like Wallington to become a pretty village again but I suggest the residents look after the residential streets and let the business people look after the business areas.

        Comment by Steve Lewis | June 11, 2013

  2. What about the jobs they will bring to the youth of the area???

    Comment by GhengEnWu | June 11, 2013 | Reply

    • Yes indeed. MacDonalds will employ a good number of young people and give them a chance to break free of the terrible despondency of youth unemployment. It will also boost the Council’s funds by its non domestic rates payments and give other prospective traders the confidence to open businesses here.
      Its sad that those who see no further than their own front gardens dont take more important considerations into account. I’m very diisappointed that our own MP, for whom I have great respect, has chosen to champion the cause of some disgruntled homeowners instead of looking at the greater benefits.
      And if the application is refused, what then will happen to the ugly boarded up commercial site ? More charity shops and building societies ? Will any proposed development have to first prove acceptable to the nimbys ?

      Comment by Steve Lewis | June 11, 2013 | Reply

      • Why so angry Steve Lewis, and why so trite and childish, Rosemount is an eyesore? It has been there since the mid sixties and yet you are apparently aware of objections raised at the time…. I’ll repeat, 8 McDonalds (NB: not MacDonalds) within a couple of miles, what on Earth is to be gained from another apart from noise and pollution? A few jobs, while welcome, are hardly justification for yet another and why further fill the coffers of another Tax dodging Corporation? I’m sure McDonalds is used to fighting these planning battles without help from you, is that perhaps what you are doing here?

        Comment by Mac Baker | June 11, 2013

  3. PS Steve, in answer to your question about proposed developments first having to prove acceptable to ‘nimbys’….yes! That’s Democracy and we are talking about a McDonalds here! NOT a Centre for The Arts or something else of some value, a McDonalds in the midst of eight others, unbelievable.

    Comment by Mac Baker | June 11, 2013 | Reply

    • Angry ? Yes indeed, As a local trader of more than 20 years I am more than angry that the decline of Wallington as a shopping centre could begin to be arrested if a new and respected business was not prevented from locating here by an energetic but self serving minority. Rosemount is an upended windowed shoebox with tangles of unsightly antennas on the roof, presiding over a failed shopping precinct. Yet from that lofty but unsightly perch you find the prospect of overlooking – at quite a distance – a tastefully designed and landscaped restaurant unacceptable. Its a case of pot and kettle. I was a small boy when Rosemount was built but I assume objections were raised. Do you assume otherwise ? It would be most unlikely.
      Moving on – 8 McDonalds (I stand corrected) within a couple of miles, why is that an issue ? I expect each of those turn a healthy profit and thus the choice of locations is obviously correct. They seem to be placed where there is demand. By the way have you ever counted the number of Indian restaurants between Rosemount and Sandy Lane South ? I think you will find its 8 but check it out. Have you ever thought to object that nothing is to be gained apart from noise and pollution from an excess of similar restaurants in one small secondary high street ?
      On your final point, I do not consider a noisy pressure group represents democracy, .It appears that it’s not the justice of the cause or the will of the majority, but the loudness of the objection which brings the support not only of a Ward Councillor but of an elected MP too. I actually know personally two members of the “anti” campaign and the reasons they have openly given to me are strictly and solely related to the perceived reduction in the value of their properties.
      And finally … would a centre for the arts bring footfall and revenue to the businesses of Wallington ? What would you consider appropriate for the large boarded up commercial site ? Another Rosemount perhaps ?
      I don’t consider myself trite or childish, and I certainly have no connection with McDonalds, but I do have the resurrection of Wallington as a commercial reality at heart and since I have no Council or Parliamentary big guns in support I have no option but to let my passions show. Nothing personal though, and I hope you’ll join me for a delicious McDonalds breakfast if common sense prevails.

      Comment by Steve Lewis | June 12, 2013 | Reply

      • I’m afraid I see McDonalds as an integral part of the destruction of our High Streets, if local councils would help small businesses open by giving them, for example zero or very low Rates for a year, perhaps even helping with financing them we would perhaps see Butchers, Greengrocers, Fishmongers, Off Licences etc. rather than Large and small Supermarkets everywhere. We now have the large Sainsbury’s, Tesco Express, Sainsbury’s Local all within a couple of hundred yards, this is planning madness! I was actually happier to have the Car Wash and Car Sales on the location of the proposed McDonalds, at least they were small and not providing more money for a Multinational.
        I am in fact not opposed to McDonalds in principal, Tax aside they actually DO seem to look after their sites and I agree the proposed restaurant is not at all ugly. What you see as a business district is in fact Residential with provision for small businesses, I realise that times have changed but the balance has tipped away from small businesses which will continue to flounder if we don’t regenerate, I don’t see how Supermarkets and major Fast Food premises will do this, at least the KFC is contained within a shop unit and therefore of some value. I am completely against this development and will remain so.

        Comment by Mac Baker | June 12, 2013

  4. Well put Mac Baker!!

    Comment by Alan Fitter | June 12, 2013 | Reply

  5. In response to Steve Lewis’s earlier comment, I obviously didn’t mean he had shares in McDonalds but a vested in interest in a McDonalds coming to that site. Come clean Mr Lewis – you’re accusing people of nimbyism – so what exactly are your reasons for championing the application? A few low paid jobs and “footfall” – footfall for who?

    Comment by Alan Fitter | June 12, 2013 | Reply

  6. Footfall for all the retail businesses in Wallington of course, and the enlivenment of a once bustling town. The few low paid jobs, as you put it, are extremely important to those taking them. Is there an opposite to “Nimbyism ?” Maybe “Imbypism,” “in my back yard please-ism.” I’m an Imbyp.
    I champion the cause because I want Wallington to attract big corporate investors who will have a strong voice with the Council and may help to bring about further businesses and a town we can be proud of, not a residential suburb of Sutton. Certainly it would look wonderful with no retail areas at all and perhaps a few tea rooms and antique shops but it would just become a ghost town without the traders. The lavender fields arent coming back !!
    And as a more personal reason I envisage sitting in the sun on a Sunday morning outside a smart new restaurant with my kids enjoying a McD’s big breakfast. I bet you will too !

    Comment by Steve Lewis | June 12, 2013 | Reply

  7. If it was any other fast food company I’m sure no one would object. How many food outlets have opened in the wallington high st and Stafford road. Just because its a multinational corp people are objecting. I’m sure if a tesco or similar store opened people would accept with open arms. For example the new Salisbury local under cannon court? Didn’t see any objection for that did we? What about tfx, other independent retailers and other local shops being trampled upon by large supermarkets!

    Comment by Harshal | July 9, 2013 | Reply

    • Very good points. I note many of the objectors on this and other forums wrongly criticise the quality of the food and even the concept of “fast food.” Of course the Council cannot view these as appropriate objections but it illustrates the mindset of the objectors, however ill founded and illogical those objections are.
      The fact that the council is already opposed indicates to me that Wallington is only ever intended to be the poor relation of Sutton.and perhaps the McDonalds site is pencilled in for the building of the required percentage of affordable homes, which the huge new retail/residential development planned and approved for Sutton managed somehow to avoid.

      Comment by Steve Lewis | July 9, 2013 | Reply

    • Residents don’t have the opportunity to object to all new businesses, only if it is a new planning application, or certain changes of use. The space at Canon Court was designated for retail use when planning permission was granted. There are no powers for residents or the council to determine exactly which retailer can occupy the space, and the same principle applies to other outlets.
      Local people have given a variety of reasons for opposing the McDonalds application, most don’t object to the company itself, just having a massive drive through restaurant at the end of their gardens. Others state their objection to yet another fast food takeaway in the area close to two primary schools. Many are concerned about the traffic impact. Some residents don’t like the idea of big brands taking over the area and squeezing out smaller enterprises and this would equally apply to Sainsburys & Tescos. And yes one or two do object to the McDonalds brand itself on principle. Whatever the reasons residents have the right to express their opinions and have their concerns taken into account when the planning application is considered.

      Comment by jaynemccoy | July 9, 2013 | Reply

  8. Frankily the way I see it is that people are scared that McDonalds will overpower the other restaurants in the area which the majority are fast food but sell food like kebabs, pizza and fish and chips, none of these McDonalds sell and the prices of McDonalds food isn’t very competitive against our fast food resturants, in regards to the actually resturants like pizza express, there will be maybe a slight decrease of customers at first but eventually people will start to eat somewhere different as they get bored of the food. I would actually like a McDonalds to come to wallington as it will bring jobs and will finally cover that ugly vacant spot with a building.

    Comment by Emmanuel Munyani | July 10, 2013 | Reply

  9. Yes the vacant spot is a terrible scar on the neighborhood and gives the impression that we have no regard for our town. Even before it was boarded up it was a noisy and scruffy “cash-only” hand car wash which caused lines of waiting cars but no disruption to traffic, as is being suggested of the McDonalds.
    McDonalds food is of exceptionally high quality. Burgers being made from only 100% British and Irish beef and no additives. Fast food isnt always bad but McDonalds is often a favourite target.
    I would like a new alternative restaurant in Wallington and particularly at the site chosen. I cant see what any of the fuss is about and I am in favour of the plans. I certainly would not like to see the old petrol station site turned into high density flats which would bring even more pressure on to our overloaded infrastructure.

    Comment by Penny Caruana | July 10, 2013 | Reply

    • High quality? Why not eat it everyday than?

      pfffffft its junk food and these plans are junk.

      Comment by liam | July 14, 2013 | Reply

  10. Why not eat ground rice and lentils every day ? People enjoy choice, and one man’s meat is another man’s poison. Methinks Liam has more personal reasons to oppose the restaurant concealed beneath his desire to save us all from early graves.

    Comment by Steve Lewis | July 16, 2013 | Reply

    • Fatuous even by your standards Mr Lewis, carry on demolishing any credibility you may have had.

      Comment by Mac Baker | July 21, 2013 | Reply

  11. Personally I have nothing against McDonald’s, it’s the traffic and rubbish generated that annoys me. We have a few inconsiderate people, who believe that throwing their McDonalds packaging out of thier car windows is acceptable. That’s why I don’t want McDonald s in Wallington. I was hoping to a similar building as Tesco’s in the High Street, 3 shops and some flats above I think this would have made more effective use of the plot..

    Comment by imellor | September 19, 2013 | Reply

  12. The Executive Head for Economic Development, Planning and Sustainability has recommended granting the application. The police have withdrawn their objection. The closing time has been set at 11.00 pm. Litter, traffic, antisocial behavious, noise, pollution, sustainability, signage, proximity to schools, impact on local business, food quality, in fact all the grounds of your objection have been professionally addressed.
    Its perfectly obvious that the McDonalds development will do nothing but improve the area.
    Unless you dispute the official findings, what now are your objections ?

    Comment by Steve Lewis | October 9, 2013 | Reply

    • My objections stand. My main problem is the effect on traffic so close to the Sainsbury’s Car Park entrance and Stafford/Woodcote Junction, TFL already close their ears to complaints from Sainsbury’s Management and we here at Rosemount. I’m sure the feasibility studies have all come out in favour of the development as they must have for the recently opened Morrisons adjacent to Fiveways. I recently spent nearly an hour trying to leave that car park on a Saturday afternoon, we have a similar problem getting out of the Sainsbury’s car park during the smallest glitch in local traffic control. 40 Flats at Rosemount have car parking in the Basement of this car park, this is a mixed residential commercial neighbourhood and whether you like it or not there is much opposition to this development. Why oh why do we need another McDonalds when there are 8 that’s EIGHT within two miles? Are you going to fund the loss of value to the property alongside it?

      Comment by Mac Baker | October 9, 2013 | Reply

      • Mac my point all along has been the OGRES concern is first and foremost fear of a reduction in their property values and now at least you have honestly come out and said so.
        If you go into the detailed report of the EDPS you’ll find the traffic aspect has been thoroughly examined. An interesting point is that a considerable number of McD clients will be driving past on their usual route and perhaps pop in for a takeaway. Its not as if it will become a particular destination. As you point out, there are McD’s everywhere and one is much the same as another. Their sites are designed to capture passing trade, not attract it away from their other locations
        I’ve been trading in Stafford Road since 1992 and I use the road very frequently. I can truthfully say it has never taken me an hour to get out of Sainsburys or any other local car park. Your experience surely has to have had a specific cause.
        You say there is much opposition to the development, but in reality – and I have researched the figures – only around 6% of the Wallington population have signed the petition (even assuming they are residents) and that leaves around 94% silent majority who do not object.
        Now the OGRES are inviting people to bring placards and demonstrate outside the Council offices, which to means that tiny vocal minority not only disagree with the findings of the Executive Head for Economic Development, Planning and Sustainability, but also seek to indicate they represent everyone else.
        You’re a sensible guy. Doesnt it occur to you that a tiny bunch of reactionaries are looking to control the future of our town for the silliest of reasons ?

        Comment by Steve Lewis | October 9, 2013

      • Not really, I’m one of them. You seem to be unable to accept the fact that others have opinions different to your own, I LIVE at this location and will have to live with the fallout from this completely unnecessary addition to the already huge stable of Local McDonalds. You are ready to accept the reports commissioned by the developers but not the desires of your daytime neighbours, some of then doubtless your customers, my example of taking a long time to get out of our car park shot down because you obviously know better, I’ve lived here ten years and use the car park constantly, my point was that it is a delicate balance, you chose to ignore my Morrison’s example, a HUGE development which doubtless had similar studies made. Of course I realise a ninth McDonalds in our neighbourhood is essential and I expect that multinational Corporate money has doubtless already spoken very loudly indeed. However we’re not done yet, we have to LIVE here.

        Comment by Anonymous | October 9, 2013

      • I didnt realise you were referring to getting out of Rosemount car park. Apologies, I have no experience of that.
        Whether or not you or I accept the reports commissioned by the developers, the findings of the Executive Head for Economic Development, Planning and Sustainability are the reason for the recommendation to accept. I’m sure you’re not suggesting Corporate money has found its way into some back pockets, so are you saying the developers reports have been accepted without independent verification ?
        I completely understand the traffic congestion. Its a nuisance to all of us but isnt that a London-wide problem ? I suppose just about any commercial venture at the proposed site would have some impact on traffic flow, but on that logic the site would have to remain derelict for all time unless it was changed from a commercial to residential use. That WOULD be bad news for Stafford Road. Its a secondary high street and needs businesses.
        But looking again at McD’s – it’s a fast food chain. That means fast in and fast out. Congestion would mean their customers could not easily leave the site, thus preventing more from entering. The last thing they would want for a drive through is a site where traffic conditions prevented a steady flow. Therefore, whilst you view their traffic studies as a means for obtaining planning, they must also indicate if or not a drive through is viable and likely to be profitable.
        I still believe all the objections have been thoroughly addressed but the Onslow Gardens grandees still desire to be the tail that wags the dog. Remember, only 6% objected (please verify my figures yourself) but still the OGRES want to make a public song and dance and fly in the face of democratic choice and professional advice. Come over to my side Mac. I’ll buy the McFlurry’s for a whole week.

        Comment by Steve Lewis | October 9, 2013

      • The entire Wallington population are not asked by the Council, just those immediately affected, I don’t have the figures but I’ll wager it’s a large percentage. People facing a large queue to the left on exit will surely just turn right. In any case I will play my part next week and we will just have to see what happens. Finally Steve, my cards are on the table, my name and the fact that I live in Rosemount but all we know about you is that you say you have a business in Stafford Road, no wonder then that people become suspicious.

        Comment by Anonymous | October 9, 2013

      • (Mac your posts are sometimes “Mac Baker” and sometimes “anonymous.” )
        The entire population wasnt asked by the Council, probably because usually such matters are only the concern of the near neighbors. In this case OGRES launched an active campaign and succeeded in obtaining signatures from many people who werent anywhere near neighbors. And the campaign wasnt aimed at seeking opinions it was purely to attract objectors. But STILL they only managed to capture only 6% although the whole population was targetted. Their petition didnt ask “are you in favour or against” so no count of the “in favours” was taken or my name would have appeared. The “in favours” were of no value apparently. Are we actually in a town where he who shouts loudest prevails ? I hope not.
        If its cards on the table you need I have no objection. I own and operate Victorphone, the mobile phone outlet next to Trueloves, and have traded from this location since October 1992. I believe I have invested in the community and am qualified to make my points even though I expect an OGRES boycott for my pains.

        Comment by Steve Lewis | October 9, 2013

  13. Oh, and by the way, TFL, bless their socks, are just about to spend £100k on improvements to Stafford Road. Things are definitely looking up.

    Comment by Steve Lewis | October 9, 2013 | Reply

  14. Steve

    As I have said in my previous comment, I am against McDonalds being opened in Wallington, not because I have anything against McDonalds, I eat there occasionally, when my god daughters want a treat. You mentioned that lots of items have been professional addressed and we have seen arguments against this re traffic. However what are the professional arguments against litter being an issue?
    I know you have no connection with McDonalds but I am intrigued as to why you are so positive?
    Also I feel I must comment on a minority not reflecting the reviews of the majority, I did a quick straw poll locally and I found broadly speaking if asked directly most people are against, but not that bothered that they are going to formally object.,
    I believe that McDonalds will be built, because they have all the answers to the objections, only time will tell if it is an asset for Wallington or not.

    Comment by imellor | October 9, 2013 | Reply

    • Mac has narrowed his objections down to traffic and yours is regardng litter. Its well worth ploughing through the reasons given for recommendation. There is of course no professional report on the possibliity of litter – how could there be – but upon the assumption of litter, McD’s maintain their own 3 times daily litter patrols will pick up not only McD packaging but all other litter in the area, As far as I am aware no other company does that and it does to some extent negate that objection.
      Indeed I have no McD connection other than being the often unwilling family delivery boy. I’m positive because I too have conducted an ongoing straw poll. My business is located at “ground zero” of the site so my customers are usually directly affected. I’ve found that people are against because the “anti” brigade have hyped that it will be open all night and Stafford Road will become a drag racing track. As soon as I mention it will have restricted opening hours – in fact 11,00 pm – I find that people do a complete about turn. Most people like a McD from time to time and many people hate the derelict site, as I do. I’m positive too because Wallington needs big business and an identity of its own. If McD’s has the confidence to invest here then perhaps other more diverse outlets will follow.

      Comment by Steve Lewis | October 9, 2013 | Reply

      • Just to respond to a couple of points, I met with McDonalds reps about this application and they admitted that as it will be a franchise they actually have no powers to enforce litter-picking, they can only encourage their franchisee to be a ‘good neighbour’, and the franchise agreement is usually for 20 years! This is backed up by the reports of residents living close to other McDonalds’ outlets who say that McDonalds promise the earth to get their application approved, but none of it actually happens, apart from constant new applications to extend the opening hours. The reps also said that the Wallington outlet will not be able to rely just on passing trade to be profitable, it will have to attract additional business as it is such a sizeable outlet and that will mean an increase in traffic.

        Comment by jaynemccoy | October 9, 2013

  15. For some reason my last comments are showing as anonymous (tablet typing) but it is me, Mac Baker…… Just for clarity..

    Comment by Mac Baker | October 9, 2013 | Reply

  16. Jayne

    Thanks for the explanation of the litter picking. I had a similar response from a McDonalds employee I spoke to. On the subject of profitability, I also wondered how they would make it pay, given it will cost thousands to build and there is so much competition from other McDonalds in the area. It’s not as if they are converting an old pub which will be much cheaper, this is major investment. Which will mean a very large volume of customers over a long time period will be required to bring it in to profit. I certainly believe traffic and litter are a real concern.

    Comment by imellor | October 9, 2013 | Reply

  17. Jayne have you examined a McDonalds franchise agreement ? I’m willing to bet it contains a great many stipulations regarding the brand and the statement McD’s wishes it to make in the area. No doubt litter-picking is addressed too but whereas McD’s may have no power to enforce it, it certainly has considerable power to withdraw the franchise in the event of infringement which amounts to much the same thing. Is the Executive Head for Economic Development, Planning and Sustainability really that easy to fool ?
    As to extending the opening hours.even I would say that is undesireable and would expect such applications to fail.
    Point taken that passing trade will be insufficient but do you concur that a considerable percentage of the business would be local or passing ? Its not as if a new McD’s would be such a novelty as to make customers drive past other McD’s just to come here. In any case an increase in traffic has been admitted but the report concludes it would be minor. Any new business would increase traffic.

    Comment by Steve Lewis | October 9, 2013 | Reply

  18. I note all the comments from Steve Lewis and the fact that he displays a welcome McDonalds poster in his shop. Do you actually live near where this is going to be? Yes there are enough fast food outlets in this area, but unlike McDonalds they are not drive thrus and thus won’t have people hanging around for hours on end. You try to paint an idealic picture of a lovely young family going to a McDonalds for a meal and then leaving quietly – oh wouldn’t that be lovely if that was the case!! But myself and the other concerned residents know that this won’t be the case. Closing at midnight doesn’t mean anything – presumably the car park will be open so lots of antisocial behaviour could happen then.

    Comment by Carol Burton | October 10, 2013 | Reply

    • Points to note Carol. Please look at the planning portal, and verify for yourself.

      Closing time is 11.00 pm, not midnight and certainly not the small hours of the morning as the OGRES site falsely states.
      The car park is to be gated against out of hours access.
      Police have withdrawn their objections.

      McDonalds is first and foremost a family restaurant. How else would you describe it ? Why would people want to “hang around” McDonalds ? Pop over to Purley Way and check for yourself. Its a fallacy.

      What I find irritating is the propaganda put out by OGRES. Its easy to whip up an angry mob if you dont deal in actual facts. Again, look at the planning portal. I’m surprised you havent. Every single issue has been addressed and the application recommended to be granted. Not by laymen but by professional planning officers.but STILL the OGRES leadership is calling for demonstrations at the Council offices. It seems there could be more anti social behaviour from Onslow residents than there ever would be at McDonalds.

      Comment by Steve Lewis | October 10, 2013 | Reply

      • Steve, another correction I am afraid. The application documents ask for opening hours to 1am, it is a proposed condition applied by planning officers to restrict the opening hours to 11pm to limit the negative impact on local residents. However, also buried in the application details it is stated by McDonalds that their ambition is for 24 hour opening. As we have seen reports of the Waddon McDonalds seeking 24 hour opening, and the North Cheam one having put in regular applications to extend their opening hours further and further into the early hours,there is every expectation that even with a condition to restrict the opening hours, it will not be long before the applications to extend sneak in.
        I must also make you aware that it is not OGRES that is leading any campaign. The feedback we have had is from residents all across Wallington, much of it unsolicited. I have been surprised at how widespread the opposition is, and across all age groups. I don’t know what beef you have with OGRES but you should not be blaming them for stirring up local feeling, those feelings are there in any case, although obviously not with you.

        Comment by jaynemccoy | October 10, 2013

      • Points to note Steve: The car park to be gated – oh really! Police have withdrawn their objections -hmm. The McDonalds on Purley Way is completely different to the one that is planned for here. I’m suprised you are so against residents comments. Again, do you live in the area, I know your business is in the area. Seems to me you need to get your facts right

        Comment by Carol Burton | October 16, 2013

    • My God Steve, what brand of rose tinted glasses are you wearing, it is really hard to accept that you have no axe to grind here, the level of blind faith you display is staggering. Of course at McDonalds the world over there are constant, genteel family tea party’s being held in the sure knowledge that nothing bad will befall them. And here in South London, Utopia by any other name, NOTHING can happen! we have no issues with antisocial behaviour at all. Sorry if that was hard to decipher as it was spoken around a firmly, cheek lodged tongue!

      Comment by Mac Baker | October 10, 2013 | Reply

  19. On the point of anti-social behaviour, I remember not so long ago that Sutton McDonald’s was forced to shut at 9pm, because of this very issue.

    Comment by imellor | October 10, 2013 | Reply

  20. I’m appalled by the implication that Wallington residents are deemed sufficiently unintelligent as to be unable to make their own choices about healthy eating plans and thus need local dictatorships to oversee their lifestyles and that of their children.
    I’m a very local resident and I would like to see something fresh and new in our street instead of just the huge billboard for poster stickers as we have now.
    Much ado about nothing.

    Comment by Penny Caruana | October 14, 2013 | Reply

    • Penny, perhaps you should read the thread thoroughly, what I’d like is a little pull in with Butcher, Baker, Greengrocer and Fishmonger. . . oh and maybe an Off Licence. . . .

      Comment by Mac Baker | October 14, 2013 | Reply

  21. Penny

    I think you misunderstand, most people are against the unsocial behaviour and litter, not the food.
    I believe that the average Wallington resident can make sensible decisions about their diet.

    Comment by imellor | October 14, 2013 | Reply

  22. Steve, no posts from you today since last night’s meeting? So much for all the concerns over the proposal having been mitigated! Neither Sutton officers nor McDonalds’ Reps appeared very professional last night. Good on the councillors on the committee for listening to public opinion. No antisocial behaviour at the meeting, Just a large – very well behaved – crowd of local residents. I am sure McDonalds will have the arrogance to appeal the decision, but we won the battle and I am sure we can win the war.

    Comment by Matt | October 17, 2013 | Reply

    • Very pleased at the result, I was unable to speak as planned but good sense has (so far) won the day….

      Comment by Mac Baker | October 17, 2013 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: