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