louisiana

Good on you, treetoad.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Allow a good hour or so waiting at the bus stop. Agreed. I've waited for over an hour for a 37 on a Saturday before now. Sunday I wouldn't even consider.

You can use smokeless fuel, or you can install a stove that is on the approved list for smokeless zones (for burning wood etc). There are quite a few know (e.g. from Morso). A stove is more expensive, but more efficient (less fuel, more heat into the room), so appropriate if you're going to be around longer term.

Shouldn't you be at church?

Any other Chillers?

Thanks paulino and all. The problem is getting a fair reflection of 30 years' stuff in there and prioritising (when you have a pretty busy portfolio career). And working out the priorities when it's board/trustee stuff is slightly tricky. (In other words, the voluntary stuff more important that the paid stuff in this context.) Hobbies? Who has time for those?

Nothing wrong with playing guitar Keef. Making music... I had dinner last night with a folk singer who cannot understand why people would just listen to music (at a party etc.) rather than playing it themselves.

More fundamentally, what is a god?

charliecharlie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > love the map kford > > hhhmmmm 70 years thinking about it so far > that should mean we only need only another 30 > years to raise the funding, 15 more planning it, > 20 to build it, 5 more to debate what to call it > and we should have it up and running 2079... I was going to say to the OP that she'll be e pensioner before anything happens. But you've said it in another way. But I do admire her pluck. Go for it Nikki!

Call me old fashioned. For me, there are no acceptable tattoos. The body is beautiful. Why ruin what nature gave you?

Bizzy You'll notice *someone else* jumped in *not* interpreting your comment to me about clouting me as a joke. 'Clout' is a marvellous Anglo-Saxon word, but umm quite physical. ::o You came across as very serious in that post, and there was no smiley or similar anywhere. :) Like that. To aid understanding/interpretation. But as I said before, let's just put it to one side. As others have said on this thread, "There are lots of large but less interesting buildings that can house congregations". Some churches even build their own. Many, many take over existing church buildings when those congregations are no more or where church assets need to be realised. (That means no planning/change of use class is required.) But there are not many lovely old cinema buildings. So many old cinemas been demolished (in ED included). It would be nice to see a a classic old cinema building preserved as a cinema, and it would be nice to see such a building open to all, seven days a week. That is what Picturehouse cinemas do. They also offer a place for people to meet, film screenings for mothers with babies and very young children (and all the social benefits of that for mothers with young children - I hate seeing the whole 'mothers with their young children meet in the pub' thing), the opportunity to screen shorts etc. for local/new film-makers, non-film events, film-related speakers such as film directors, and so much more. I think a development into just about any other use I can think of (including a chain pub) would not offer the same benefits to the local community. I am also strongly against the onward march of large chain retail stores that take the heart out of communities (and which I've often posted about on this forum over the last three years). Pual Kingsnorth has written a good book about this. But that's my view and you may have quite different views. That's life. We are each free to have our own opinion, and to express it. The pledge was successful yesterday, within 48 hours of launching (with more pledgees than required), which is something of a record I understand, and it still has some weeks left to run. So there's some evidence I'm not the only one who is thinking along these lines. (Some pledges don't succeed even after months of being up there.) No doubt we'll each work towards achieving our objectives. Involving ourselves in how our communities and neighbourhoods grow and develop is something I think everyone should do. It's the sign of a healthy society. It's when people *don't* take an interest that we need to worry. And it is to encourage such community involvement that local authorities have a Statement of Community Involvement (in planning policy and planning control)

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did all you people kick off when the Wetherspoons > opened in Forest Hill, or was that okay because it > wasn't a church? The old cinema in forest hill was already a wetherspoons When I moved back to ED in 02.As I recall there was a religious group that chanted and prayed outside,when it was still a bingo.lots of women in blue headscarves. Very entertaining. I am neither a fan of bingo or of wetherspoons.but I am a huge fan of the Duke of York's in Brighton, which is what a good cinema should be. I suspect a lot of people who live around here now didn't then.

Phyllis Pearsall. My heroine.

I insist on some Servants' Quarters. And a Scullery.

Bizzy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > annaj wrote: > > That does sound harsh Bizzy, particularly when I > suspect you have your own agenda > > Bloody Nora...Care to elaborate? - you do make it > sound quite sinister :)) > > > louisiana Wrote: > > >And you're handing them out, eh? > > Can be arranged. JK - was said in jest, apologies > if I have caused offence to anyone. > > > You care: you raised the issue of their > capacity > > for payment for the site. To me it's neither > here > > no there how much money they have. (If people > want > > to give them money, that's their business.) > > No. I was merely stating that the Church owns the > building, not who has the most money. As you said > before, this is not a competition. > > > This is about a *cinema building* that has got > > tired on the outside but that is still capable > of > > reverting to its former function for this > > neighbourhood. Have you checked out the history > on > > the interior? > > Yes. The Church could still use the building > without altering any of the prominent existing > features. So annaj's suspicion is correct. > > > Do you like movies? Do you like the 'cinema > > experience'? Do you know anything about what > some > > 'cinemas' do these days? > > I recently worked on a fit out of a Cinema > (inception to completion). Sadly, I know oh so > well the emphasis placed on the "cinema > experience". I think you are referring to an entirely different kind of cinema. Yes, I do like movies - do you? Indeed. I have been known to go to the cinema more than three times a week. I almost lived in the Odeon Tottenham Court Road at one time (displacement activity for studying). > > > > A range of projects elsewhere, such as a ?3m > > project with umpteen buildings and > *substantially* > > more land. Nothing to do with this part of > town. > > Or this town indeed. > > It's always good to hear construction projects are > on the go. > > > > Indeed. And there are many ways to fail too. As > some developers have found out. > > Developers yes - starting from scratch, this is a > change of use application. Developers often take over existing buildings, remodel or not, convert or not, apply for extensions/change of use/whatever. Many developers do nothing else. As you will know, it all comes under *exactly* the same government and local authority planning regime, namely Planning Control and Planning Enforcement and the national Use Class system.

Bizzy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisiana, this may sound harsh but, you need a > good clout. I never cease to be surprised by the number of people who seem to be associated with religion of various kinds who so quickly begin to 'talk in violence' (or worse). You will not convince people of anything by threatening to hit them, either in the offline or online worlds. But let that pass this time. Ever heard of 'non-violent communication'? It's a really interesting technique that I've only recently come across.

And beyond the duck house, the island...

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i always beg friends and fmaily not to, as the > seemingly-rising level of violence scares me. > > But JoJo09 - as has been said before - "All that > is needed for evil to triumph is for good people > to do noting". Louisianna is right - we must get > up and stand up. Thanks for the kind mention there MM, but I'm afraid this was another outbreak of Lyrical Contamination Syndrome (Marley in this case). See the Lounge Dear Agony Auntie thread. Though, seriously, I do believe we should do what we can. I've chased handbag snatchers (twice), challenged muggers (rather stupidly!) and generally act before I think in these situations, perhaps. But watching wrong being done without doing anything is not in my nature.

I'm surprise to see no postings from Bizzy on this thread. Elsewhere, Bizzy's on god-bothering top form.

By the way Bizzy, it would be really nice to see you posting on EDF about something unrelated to: gods of any variety, religion, churches, the trouble with atheists, the Alpha Course.... There must be other things that interest you? There is a whole wide world out there.

Fake designer bags, fake perfume and now fake local residents. What is the world coming to?

Bizzy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisiana, this may sound harsh but, you need a > good clout. And you're handing them out, eh? > > I know all about planning - I've been on both > sides of the fence for myself and a number of > Clients. Please don't lecture me. From the other > posters, I sense a legitimate reason for > objection. You on the other hand, dig and delve > deeply into this Church, almost as if you're > looking for something which you can use against > them. Who cares how much money they earn? You care: you raised the issue of their capacity for payment for the site. To me it's neither here no there how much money they have. (If people want to give them money, that's their business.) This is about a *cinema building* that has got tired on the outside but that is still capable of reverting to its former function for this neighbourhood. Have you checked out the history on the interior? Do you like movies? Do you like the 'cinema experience'? Do you know anything about what some 'cinemas' do these days? Who > cares if they are a Charity? What has this go to > do with your objection? You make it personal and > obvious. You don't need to do that to mount a bona > fide objection. > > "I'm involved with another such 'renegotiation' of > a property where the planners did not give way and > the developer failed." Let me guess - you gave > your two pennies worth on the neighbour > consultation sheet? Neighbour consultation sheet?? You've lost me there. (Something you've been promoting?) A range of projects elsewhere, such as a ?3m project with umpteen buildings and *substantially* more land. Nothing to do with this part of town. Or this town indeed. There are many ways of > satisfying conditions set out UDPs. Indeed. And there are many ways to fail too. As some developers have found out.

The Broom Cupboard. (see Becker/Ermakova)

Sorry SimonM. That audience does look as though it could do with some Vosene though!

Bizzy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Church has procured the building - did it > occur to you that the independent cinema may not > have had the finance to compete? Indeed the church concerned bought the building. It has around ?19.5millionn million quid income a year from donations and very few outgoings (overheads around a million in latest filed accounts). So its pockets are effectively bottomless. They could pay really silly money for the site (maybe they have???) We see that all the time in the world of commercial property (people paying silly money and then running up against planning). > the Church proposal is refused? Will they sit on > the site (most probable)? Sell it to the > independent cinema for a reduced sum (I don't > think so)? Do you really care if it becomes an > independent cinema (I don't think so!!)? Planning is not about 'my d**k* is bigger than yours'. There are plenty of examples of people throwing money around who have not succeeded, because their aims did not accord with local plans and neighbourhoods. I'm involved with another such 'renegotiation' of a property where the planners did not give way and the developer failed. That is all. The whole > thing reeks of a quick fix to stop another Church > from opening in the area because you don't like > the look of them and what they stand for. For the > record, I am in no way associated with this > Church. Live and let live. > I supported the idea of returning the cinema to cinema use long before I knew anything about who might be involved. I've lived very near the Duke of York's and know that cinema group well, as well as being a regular at two other Picturehouse cinemas over the years, in different cities. This has also influenced me since I found our they were behind another bid. I think you're wrong. I'm sure people objected at the time to the cinema becoming a bingo hall (and bingo, AFAIK, is not a religion!). In other words, for many people it's the cinema thing.