snowy_again
Slush
Mid April for Cafe Max - it's been on their window for a few weeks.
While I can see legitimate reasons that the shrubbery might be pulled out later, if its true that the mosaic is in breach of their planning permission, report this to lambeth planning enforcement and post their response here.View attachment 164380 View attachment 164381looks like NR aren't finishing arches in line with planning conditions. All adopted planning drawings show the existing really nice polished mosaic tiling being cleaned and repaired. Looks to me like they've repaired and painted instead. Must have saved NR some cash I guess. When do you think they'll be pulling out the shrubbery as well, which also forms part of the planning documents.
Yes the sign is up that they are coming backIs Cafe Max coming back?
Perhaps you missed the earlier post which cited their own website which reported that only a minority of businesses are returning, in stark contract to their original claim of "75%" of businesses returning (which conveniently didn't include any of the sub-let businesses who will not be returning).View attachment 164580
Well here’s another FOUR, It nowhere near as bad as you’ve reported so far that’s EIGHT
And your evidence for this cheery claim?View attachment 164580....I’m sure others have relocated and are doing good business.
They already said that that business was bad and that they were were not making money, NOTHING TO DO WITH NR they would have closed anyway, they quoted Brindisa as a reason, and Brindisa are no longer there, let’s get real about business and the economic climate.And your evidence for this cheery claim?
You can start with the A&C deli.
Mid April for Cafe Max - it's been on their window for a few weeks.
Oh dear, you really are a bit out of touch here.They already said that that business was bad and that they were were not making money, NOTHING TO DO WITH NR
Anyway how about all these other evicted businesses that are supposedly thriving elsewhere?With Network Rail wanting everyone out by October and Lambeth Council sheepishly declaring it wasn’t anything to do with them, it was a landlord/tenant dispute.
We realised that the reason that their hands were behind their backs, wasn’t because they were tied, it was because their hands were holding a big “APPROVED” rubber stamp, ready to use on the planning application.
Eight months later and we’re still being dragged over the coals.
Everyone’s business is in limbo, we don’t know if and when we’ll be evicted, we don’t know how long any refurbishment will take. We don’t know where we’re supposed to go whilst it happens.
What we do know is that Network Rail aren’t interested in listening and have no regard for the loss of goods and services to our community that these evictions will result in.
They already said that that business was bad and that they were were not making money, NOTHING TO DO WITH NR they would have closed anyway, they quoted Brindisa as a reason, and Brindisa are no longer there, let’s get real about business and the economic climate.
View attachment 164380 View attachment 164381looks like NR aren't finishing arches in line with planning conditions. All adopted planning drawings show the existing really nice polished mosaic tiling being cleaned and repaired. Looks to me like they've repaired and painted instead. Must have saved NR some cash I guess. When do you think they'll be pulling out the shrubbery as well, which also forms part of the planning documents.
If the finish of the units had been akin to the sanitised, tidy, pristine exposed brick look of the units in King's Cross, can you honestly say you would have not rejected it as a negative development due to concerns it might likely cause to further advance the gentrification process in the area?I was in Brixton Station Road today. So had a look. Its not completely finished yet. I was surprised at how cheap and tacky the finish is. Unless some extra work is to be done over next weeks I'm not impressed. Its not to the standard of work at Kings Cross for example.
If the finish of the units had been akin to the sanitised, tidy, pristine exposed brick look of the units in King's Cross, can you honestly say you would have not rejected it as a negative development due to concerns it might likely cause to further advance the gentrification process in the area?
Before anyone starts making accusations of being a cheerleader for NR, attempting point scoring or ganging up, I'm not having a go at you. But given the usual opposition expressed here to proposals to improve public areas in Brixton or make more aesthetically pleasing for fears of indirectly promoting gentrification, I'd have thought giving the units a cheap and tacky look would have been a great outcome in your view. And that the polished finish of the King's Cross units would have been about the last thing you'd wanted.
No.This is point scoring.
A cheap shot that.
And you are having a good at me.
My post above shows the discrepancy between what NR said they would do and what they have done. The actual facts. After what mafada posted I thought I'd have a look at the original drawings.
Do you think its ok for a developer to present quality work to planning committee and then actually do something that looks different?
No.
No.
And no.
In fact, it has become all but impossible in the last year or so to simply express a differing opinion in here without being accused of hidden agendas, ulterior motives, or of being right wing and on the side of corporations. It is stifling all debate in this forum as well as, in this case and many others, completely untrue.
As to the question in your post, the answer is of course 'no'. But then again that issue was not mentioned at all in the post I replied to, and I posted my reply before I had seen your subsequent post. So I had no way of knowing you were talking about apparent shortcomings in the developer's finished product.
The post I replied to was purely and solely about aesthetics and compassions with the arches at King's Cross. So it would be nice to be granted the benefit of the doubt from time to time when expressing a differing opinion, instead of dismissing me or my comments as dishonest or agenda driven.
I am sorry you feel that way but not only I am not having a go in any way or form, I genuinely struggle to understand how you could possibly have reached reach that conclusion from my post, in particular after I had made it clear that I had not seen your follow-up comment when I posted my reply.Having to deal with posts like yours is why I find it difficult to keep posting on the Brixton forum.
It doesn't matter how I post up.
If I'm posting a straightforward opinion you take that as an opportunity to have a go.
My last couple of posts have been looking at the arches myself after what mafalda posted ( and I notice that went unremarked by you. Only when I post up does it become an issue), and posting up what I think. Looking up the plans to see if there are discrepancies between the plans and the actual finished product.
I am sorry you feel that way but not only I am not having a go in any way or form, I genuinely struggle to understand how you could possibly have reached reach that conclusion from my post, in particular after I had made it clear that I had not seen your follow-up comment when I posted my reply.
Not everyone is out to get you for simply engaging in a discussion with you in an Internet forum-at least I am not, anyway.
It was directed at you. I was replying to you at the end of the day- a natural and commonplace occurrence in a message board. But my post was not malicious, offensive, personal or aggressive in any way whatsoever; I was commenting on a single post (just one) you had made. So I started nothing, or nothing detrimental or negative anyway.You did post up quoting my posts. So its hardly surprising if I think its directed at me.
Saying "not everyone is out to get you" is just annoying. That is to make me appear like I'm paranoid. Its to deflect that you started this.
You posted up quoting my posts taking issues with what I said. That is what happened. I was not arguing with you. You started it not me.
View attachment 164618 mafalda got me looking at the planning application.
Here is how it was supposed to look:View attachment 164616
It say remove tiling and make good brickwork below. What has happened is the tiling has been left on and painted black. Other arches have no tiling and arch has been painted black. The brickwork has not been made good.
This is cheaply done version of what was presented to the planning committee.
The drawing shows something much nicer than what has been done.
To borrow mafalda image to see the difference:
There was an article in the Standard moaning about the devastating effects of business rate hikes in London generally. How are these poor sods supposed to make a living with the government forcing up business rates AND the arches imposing rising rental contracts?They already said that that business was bad and that they were were not making money, NOTHING TO DO WITH NR they would have closed anyway, they quoted Brindisa as a reason, and Brindisa are no longer there, let’s get real about business and the economic climate.
There was an article in the Standard moaning about the devastating effects of business rate hikes in London generally. How are these poor sods supposed to make a living with the government forcing up business rates AND the arches imposing rising rental contracts?
I reckon retail is becoming a mugs game. Very soon everyone will be "sitting in their lonely room" ordering pizzas via Deliveroo and groceries from Ocado!
There was an article in the Standard moaning about the devastating effects of business rate hikes in London generally. How are these poor sods supposed to make a living with the government forcing up business rates AND the arches imposing rising rental contracts?
I reckon retail is becoming a mugs game. Very soon everyone will be "sitting in their lonely room" ordering pizzas via Deliveroo and groceries from Ocado!