"Stuart" wrote ...
Also it was the relatively unimportant Camden Canal Market that burnt
down. The much larger Camden Lock Market was unaffected.
They can't really afford to lose a market at the moment, no matter how
minor.
The Stables market has been demolished and if LU have their way the one
next to the tube station will be next to go

Who is 'they'?

And are there any proposals to replace the market area that LU needs for the
station work?
--

Andrew

"Stuart" wrote ...
They can't really afford to lose a market at the moment, no matter how
minor.
Who's 'they'?

Camden

Huh?
Camden council?
Camden residents?

Neither gets much out of the markets; most Camden residents loathe the
filth, congestion and disruption and crime associated with the market.

Most of the 'customers', who throng in to buy tat at inflated prices, buy
drugs and shoplift, are not camden residents or council tax payers; few
spend much money in local shops (though the pubs do OK).

Very few of the stallholders have any local connection at all.

Camden council makes sympathetic noises because they daren't do anything
else, now that the market is part of "Ye Olde London", and has been for
about 15 years. But they'd probably be as pleased as the residents if they
didn't have to clean up after it, financed only in small part by the
business council tax the market yields.

I suspect Amy Whinehouse would be upset, but most things upset our Amy,
don't they?
--

Andrew

"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Stuart wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

They can't really afford to lose a market at the moment, no matter how
minor.

Who's 'they'?

Camden

Camden is a 'where', not a 'they'. Were you thinking of some specific
group of people in Camden?

The Stables market has been demolished

No it hasn't.

Yes it has, all the arches have gone and are now a building site.

The Horse Hospital building doesn't have any stalls in any more, north
of the railway line all they have is a few stalls on the ramp bit
backing onto the road

It's a lot more than a few. There are also places underneath the Horse
Hospital.

And the stuff that has been demolished was 'temporary' stalls, not
original fabric. That's still there, and will once again be housing stalls
when the redevelopment is finished. Now, i could be completely wrong and
wildly optimistic about what the nature of those stalls will be, but i
think it's still going to be Camden, just more of it. We'll have to wait
and see, won't we?

tom

--
But in natural sciences whose conclusions are true and necessary and
have nothing to do with human will, one must take care not to place
oneself in the defence of error; for here a thousand Demostheneses and
a thousand Aristotles would be left in the lurch by every mediocre wit
who happened to hit upon the truth for himself. -- Galileo

In message , at 16:04:01 on Tue, 13
Jan 2009, Andrew Heenan remarked:
Camden council makes sympathetic noises because they daren't do anything
else, now that the market is part of "Ye Olde London", and has been for
about 15 years. But they'd probably be as pleased as the residents if they
didn't have to clean up after it, financed only in small part by the
business council tax the market yields.

Business rates collected by local councils are forwarded direct to the
Treasury, and grant money received by councils is based on a formula
that pays scant attention to their business rate revenue-raising
efforts.
--
Roland Perry

Mortimer wrote

A petrol station near me caught fire a year last January and was
totally
burnt out. It took until November before the dilapidated building and

burnt-out cars on the forecourt were cleared away. Apparently if the
owner
wants to rebuild it, he has to seek new planning permission, even
though he
is rebuilding what was there previously. I'm not sure whether that
was a
special case or whether it's always true that a building which is
rebuilt
after demolition following a fire or other disaster needs a new
planning
application.

An interesting point.

Since the rebuild is hardly likely to be truly identical, planning
permission would seem required and of course the previous permission
may have included a time limit which has now expired. Some demolition
would also be needed and ISTR that demolition now requres permission
after various buildings were demolished lest they might be listed for
preservation.


--
Mike D

On 2009-01-13, Paul Terry wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Stuart wrote:
The Stables market has been demolished

No it hasn't.

Doesn't look like there's much left to me ...

http://benleto.com/blog/592/stables-market-gone/

That post is dated December 2007, I've been there more recently than
that and there was still plenty there. It was certainly not a pile of
rubble as that photo implies.

Tom Anderson wrote:

And the stuff that has been demolished was 'temporary' stalls, not
original fabric.

All the arches have gone, that was all brick structure and housed the
furniture stalls... if that's not 'fabric' i dunno what is

That's still there, and will once again be housing
stalls when the redevelopment is finished. Now, i could be completely
wrong and wildly optimistic about what the nature of those stalls will
be, but i think it's still going to be Camden, just more of it. We'll
have to wait and see, won't we?

It's going to be a load of bland (and presumably now, empty) shop units
isn't it?

Andrew Heenan wrote:

Neither gets much out of the markets; most Camden residents loathe the
filth, congestion and disruption and crime associated with the market.

Most of the 'customers', who throng in to buy tat at inflated prices, buy
drugs and shoplift, are not camden residents or council tax payers; few
spend much money in local shops (though the pubs do OK).

Very few of the stallholders have any local connection at all.

Camden council makes sympathetic noises because they daren't do anything
else, now that the market is part of "Ye Olde London", and has been for
about 15 years. But they'd probably be as pleased as the residents if they
didn't have to clean up after it, financed only in small part by the
business council tax the market yields.

I suspect Amy Whinehouse would be upset, but most things upset our Amy,
don't they?

In that case, if the people of Camden don't care about what they have
then they should demolish the whole place and build a Westfield
there.... a huge glass bland shopping mall full of all identikit shops.
Then replace all the bars and pubs with Wetherspoons and Slug and
Lettuces. It'll be boring as hell

The problem with London in the last few years is that anything with
character is being removed and replaced by offices and Starbucks and
plain blandity

Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2009-01-13, Paul Terry wrote:

Doesn't look like there's much left to me ...

http://benleto.com/blog/592/stables-market-gone/


That post is dated December 2007, I've been there more recently than
that and there was still plenty there. It was certainly not a pile of
rubble as that photo implies.

There is plenty there, yes - the rubble has been replaced by new
buildings. But there's not a lot left of what was there originally

On 14 Jan 2009 11:54:43 GMT, "Michael R N Dolbear"
wrote:

Mortimer wrote

A petrol station near me caught fire a year last January and was
totally
burnt out. It took until November before the dilapidated building and

burnt-out cars on the forecourt were cleared away. Apparently if the
owner
wants to rebuild it, he has to seek new planning permission, even
though he
is rebuilding what was there previously. I'm not sure whether that
was a
special case or whether it's always true that a building which is
rebuilt
after demolition following a fire or other disaster needs a new
planning
application.

An interesting point.

Since the rebuild is hardly likely to be truly identical, planning
permission would seem required and of course the previous permission
may have included a time limit which has now expired. Some demolition
would also be needed and ISTR that demolition now requres permission
after various buildings were demolished lest they might be listed for
preservation.

If you're thinking about the same building as I am then that was in
Scotland where demolition is not "permitted development" except in
urgent circumstances.
AFAICT planning permission is still not generally required in England,
although other requirements apply :-
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/eng...315297637.html