healey

Holding back the ears.

Don't what all the fuss is about. There's already a large plant structure on the roof.

> Perhaps this would be a good time for the patrons > of the new cinema to ask about the conditiona in > the ED cinema, ie right to unionise, are they on > zero hours contracts, do they get the London > Living Wage etc? No I'll just go see some films. Thanks.

I have to say, having looked at the Peckham Vision site, that they seem like they'd be an absolute nightmare to work with. Various demands to protect this piece of art-deco, that view, this arch, all backed up by some ill-defined, anti-capitalist concept of utopia in which everything will be better despite the fact that nothing will be allowed to change. I'm all for preserving history, but the way to do that is to focus one's efforts whilst allowing some room for the future.

The gentrification of Brixton and ED are exactly the same thing. London is a growing city and there is high demand for Zone 2 living. As for "lines being crossed", nothing is going to stop it happening. Nothing.

There are some good examples with preserving, but the one in front of the station does need to go.

I like the architecture, it's modern with a nod to the past. Looks to be of decent quality too. No rendered breezeblock.

I agree. One side should be left clear.

Haha yep! Fact checking, typos. Woke up early.

It's a big mast, but there's a wide streak of hypocrisy running through the opposition since I'm assuming virtually all of the objectors have 4G mobile phones and wi-fi routers that are used in close proximity to themselves and their kids. The irony is that the closer to a mast a phone is the less power it has to use to maintain a signal, so being further from a mast can increase local exposure levels! The health concerns are so much bunk, anyway. We are bombarded with non-ionizing EM waves from multiple technologies at all times. If one is REALLY worried about kids and radiation then best to keep them inside a darkened room at all times, since UV from the Sun can cause RNA damage in skin cells. We call it sunburn.

Some decorators just hate F&B because it needs lots of coats. The estate emulsion is rather old fashioned to use, I guess. The resulting colours are worth it though, rich with loads of depth.

MissKing Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And interestingly here you can see inside the > cottages when they were last up for sale. I don't > see how it can be justified to demolish these I > really don't! > > http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detail.htm > l?country=england&locationIdentifier=STREET%5E5183 > 53&searchLocation=Railway+Rise&referrer=landingPag > e "Squalid", according to one commenter......

Yep, Agia Efemia many years back. It was lovely. For some young adults you'd probably need to be nearer the main town than we were, but I was in my early twenties and perfectly happy to loll around liitle bars in quiet resorts.

"Have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol? Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation of water? Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?? "I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids." Jack D. Ripper.

Blackcurrant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've posted my objection a second time as all > previous objections appear to have been deleted. Perhaps Cllr Barber could email Southwark's IT dept to find out where they went? Hopefully just a glitch.

chazzle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BTW, the plan shown earlier is a reduction on the > original plans which had an extra storey. > > "That beautiful little row of rail workers > cottages ... " - Next in line for demolition Indeed. And on those plans they include these building on the drawings in a blatant attempt to manipulate context. Nothing over two storeys should be allowed on this site.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... which will help give the Council the excuse to > shut Grove Vale Library and not open a new one on > the old garden centre site as planned because the > development has stalled. As I mentioned to Cllr > Barber a while ago, the new library is by no means > a done deal. The library should be separate issue.

Blackcurrant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another giant box to match the one over the > station. I heard the "box over the station" had stalled due to disagreements over the old station building. Clearly this proposal was going to use that development as context, but perhaps that's not so easy now. The planning policy for the rise will need to be clarified. In my opinion the railway cottages should be conserved and the opposite side of the rise limited to two-storey development.

Those plans are.... ridiculous. The remaining house is completely dwarfed. Its occupiers must be completely horrified. Should be thrown out.

Not really surprising at all. In an age of heavy traffic and the increasing inconvenience of car ownership professionals with money to burn now seek to live in inner cities with amenities and transport links. Outer city suburbs aren't the attractive proposition they were in the post-war period. Plus Peckham has been rather upmarket the past...

I'm normally open minded about new development. However, in this case a shop with flats above tacked to number 1 is a horrible clash of context. I'm happy to rush to judgement on that basis alone. As they are they form a neat little block with some historical merit. DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "The various references all refer to the new > station building for ED (or Denmark Hill) - plans > published & image on the forum." > > No, they don't, and in any event that hasn't been > built yet so the poorly built reference would > obviously be premature. No plans available for > the proposed Railway Rise development so it might > seem sensible for people to wait before they rush > to judgment, but I'm not holding my breath.

There's plenty of space in these for couples. I'd put money on the new above shop flats being very pokey affairs. enguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Railway cottages may well be a great retention for > the local visual environment, but the ones I have > been in, (not these ones, I should hasten to add) > were often poky and cramped inside, not well > provided for cooking (I can't say the k word) or > bathrooms - they have often needed very extensive > uplift to meet modern standards expectations. They > were 'model homes' in their day, and provided > railway workers with better accommodation that > they might have had elsewhere, but 'their day' has > long passed.

As others have said, the cottages may not be architecturally remarkable but they embody the early history of ED as a suburb and should be retained.

If this isn't thrown out in short order it should be. I'd assumed they were still private residences.

The apprentice minimum pay scheme is a scam.