|
Not in my back yard
Residents welcome new London railway depot - not!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm MaxB |
Not in my back yard
On 7 Aug, 12:24, MaxB wrote:
Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm MaxB "Liberal Democrat councillor for Haringey Council Rachel Allison has described the proposed building as "the bunker"... "This is a huge maintenance facility nearly two-storeys high." " My preconceptions about bunker design were that they shouldn't be so prominent! Dominic |
Not in my back yard
Dominic wrote:
On 7 Aug, 12:24, MaxB wrote: Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm MaxB "Liberal Democrat councillor for Haringey Council Rachel Allison has described the proposed building as "the bunker"... "This is a huge maintenance facility nearly two-storeys high." " My preconceptions about bunker design were that they shouldn't be so prominent! Gosh, imagine having to live opposite a two-story building... |
Not in my back yard
Basil Jet wrote:
Dominic wrote: On 7 Aug, 12:24, MaxB wrote: Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm MaxB "Liberal Democrat councillor for Haringey Council Rachel Allison has described the proposed building as "the bunker"... "This is a huge maintenance facility nearly two-storeys high." " My preconceptions about bunker design were that they shouldn't be so prominent! Gosh, imagine having to live opposite a two-story building... Storey, even. Looking at the diagram, the building will be on the far side of the ECML opposite the properties in Chadwell Lane. Aren't they council properties? Haven't these people heard that beggars can't be choosers? It will be barely visible from the private properties in New River Avenue. |
Not in my back yard
In message , at 18:41:49 on Fri, 7
Aug 2009, Basil Jet remarked: "This is a huge maintenance facility nearly two-storeys high." " Gosh, imagine having to live opposite a two-story building... It's only *nearly* two stories high. Does that mean one and a half stories, in reality? -- Roland Perry |
Not in my back yard
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 04:24:44 -0700 (PDT), MaxB
wrote: Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! Same on the former Radlett aerodrome. Freight depot proposed, locals say "nooooooooo!". Perhaps they don't want the jobs. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/ "Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it. - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society |
Not in my back yard
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:25:33 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 04:24:44 -0700 (PDT), MaxB wrote: Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! Same on the former Radlett aerodrome. Freight depot proposed, locals say "nooooooooo!". Perhaps they don't want the jobs. Perhaps they don't want the noise and the traffic, which would be considerable. The site is Green Belt and should remain so. Planning permission has been applied for on the basis of a "Rail Freight Village". The government, in all its wisdom (none!) decided that "Rail Freight Villages" should be built on Green Belt Land if they complied with a requirement that 70% of goods handled should either enter or leave by rail. Many of these "Rail Freight Villages" have been built around Britain but none of them actually complies with the 70% requirement. Several don't even have rail services at all, so they achieve 0%. No national monitoring has been done to evaluate the extent of compliance with the 70% figure, even though the 70% is a statutory requirement. The very best performing of the "Rail Freight Villages" is at Daventry in Northamptonshire, but that could only achieve 58% on the best available figures. So I am not 58%, nor 70%, but 100% in agreement with the people of Radlett and London Colney, whose lives would be blighted by the construction and operation of a sham "Rail Freight Village". It would be, in reality, just another road freight depot with a rail connection that might as well not be there, all in the Green Belt. No thanks. |
Not in my back yard
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:33:37 -0700 (PDT), Dominic
wrote: On 7 Aug, 12:24, MaxB wrote: Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm MaxB "Liberal Democrat councillor for Haringey Council Rachel Allison has described the proposed building as "the bunker"... "This is a huge maintenance facility nearly two-storeys high." " My preconceptions about bunker design were that they shouldn't be so prominent! but this one is not prominent being "nearly two storeys high" so smaller than the surrrounding suburbia. -- Peter Lawrence |
Not in my back yard
MaxB wrote:
Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm MaxB No sympathy I'm afraid - I have to live opposite a two storey building too: http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/images...e/SCR43513.JPG |
Not in my back yard
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 04:24:44 -0700 (PDT), MaxB wrote: Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! Same on the former Radlett aerodrome. Freight depot proposed, locals say "nooooooooo!". Perhaps they don't want the jobs. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/ "Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it. - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society oh yea, the people of Radlett working in an industrial complex. Kevin |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk