Manor Avenue poised to scoop title

There are many microeconomic mysteries in Brockley, from limbo shops to the aborted attempts to rescue The Talbot.

But perhaps the greatest of these is how a developer that owns a prime site in Brockley, "an area on the up", can fail to take advantage of a dramatic and sustained period of property price growth? Number 14 Manor Avenue, in the conservation area, is about to become the longest-standing derelict property in Lewisham, which is surely quite an achievement.

Planning permission was granted in 1983 to convert the three storey house in to flats. That scheme never happened and instead the building was left to rot, with the building now classed as unsafe, with many of the period features damaged or removed.

A planning document from 2006 describes the latest plans as follows:

"The alteration and conversion of 14 Manor Avenue SE4 and the construction of a part single/part two storey extension to the rear, to provide 1 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom self-contained maisonettes and 1 one bedroom self-contained flat."

The developer, sadly, has never delivered on its promises and there is no sign of the property being renovated any time soon.

Thanks to Claire for the information.

57 comments:

ross said...

seems like a prime candidate for this:-

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NewsAndEvents/News/LewishamEnforcesNewPowersToOccupyHomes.htm

although i'm not sure if the desire to have unoccupied buildings seized & used to provide housing for those that cannot afford to pay market prices was at the forefront of your mind whilst writing this piece

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

Does anyone know what is happening around Brockley station today? I saw a team of 5 builders 'doing things' in the common area and removing signs/etc on walls that i assume will be knocked down! Exciting stuff!

JPM said...

The history of that building and how the developer came by it is rather peculiar. You're quite right in remarking on its tortured history, during which nothing was done to it.

(When I came to the street I had heard that this was 14 years, so that makes eighteen now.)

Following complaints from neighbours the Council seized the property from its former owner, who may have been incapable and housed in a care home. (Don't forget we have a care ome issue pending.) It was quickly passed on to its new owner without coming to the open market.

Which was curious...

The Council has never given a good account of its relationship with this developer, and he quite clearly does not look set to complete the project in the timeframe expected, which is until the twelfth of never. (He does send the odd person round in order to make it look like he is slowly developing the building following complaints, but he just reads a newspaper.)

However, in truth, given the problems with increased parking, this should have been developed as a house then sold on, rather than landbank flats (bought below market value) following a questionable deal with the Council.

Pete said...

I agree with Ross on this front. The council should take control of this building and convert it into some sort of social housing. When there is a shortage of affordable housing property owners should not be permitted to do this kind of thing.

Anonymous said...

Was is the work by the BXAG?

JPM said...

I think you have missed the point... the Council did take control of this building. (Albeit given that its former owner may not have been able to act under his own guidance it was questionable.)

No matter. Why should it as you say go to social housing? Manor Avenue is well provided for on that front, as most of the housing associations who own property here will attest. It should have gone (should go) to the open market.

ross said...

well the point as i understand it is that the house is:-

"about to become the longest-standing derelict property in Lewisham"

regardless of legality or administrative pottering around by the council or not, the fact is that it's been unoccupied for a considerable period of time, this is one of nearly 700,000 houses in the UK that are unoccupied, 300,000 of which have been unoccupied for more than 6 months, 150,000 of that being empty for more than two years - in london & the south east alone they have 91,000 homes that have been unoccupied for more than 6 months

so there's a lot of unoccupied homes and a lot of people without homes (2,000 families alone in lewisham)......i wonder what the obvious solution would be....

however lewisham are not exactly doing much to meet their own target levels for affordable housing provision at the moment, let alone the levels recommended in the London Plan, and certainly not for the provision of affordable housing for families

i see a home as a use-value and something that everybody should have a basic entitlement to (just like food, education and other public goods), you clearly see it as nothing more than an exchange value - detached from, and devoid off, its actual original purpose to human beings

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

Believe it or not, alot of houses get sold by the crown courts who receive the rights to the property if for example a person dies or becomes incapacited.

Once a month or maybe more, judges hold sessions in court to go through the council seized property register and people are allowed to, before hand, register their interest and an amount they wish to pay. Whoever wants to pay the highest will get the property - judges way of securing 'fair value' for the now state owned property.

Its quite interesting actually, alot of non-nationals get propety in the UK that way. from what i understand, it's not unknown to see groups of immigrant families queuing up in court waiting for the session to be announced.

Brockley Nick said...

@Ross: "although i'm not sure if the desire to have unoccupied buildings seized & used to provide housing for those that cannot afford to pay market prices was at the forefront of your mind whilst writing this piece"

I hope you're employing these same people skills to your quest to save Catford from the scourge of young professionals, looking to buy a small property next to a railway line in Catford.

My main thought when writing the piece was that this seems a ridiculous waste of a good house. Whatever use it eventually gets put to would be an improvement.

And by the way - why are you still banging on about the London Plan when your own blog references the fact that Lewisham doesn't have to adhere to the targets set for London in general?

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

Ross, if you think the 'solution' is to give houses away for free then i think you need a reality check.

That would pretty much de-mean the whole of peoples working lives, the majority of people who are actually trying to pay off mortgages and support their families.

I'm all up for supporting people who need somewhere to live, but make sure they are encouraged to support themselves. Some people, i'm afraid, are completely lazy....

Hugh said...

pls smmrs thrd thx

Anonymous said...

AP&P...you don't half talk a lot bollocks.

Anonymous said...

Dead right Andy, I wouldn't want to see families homeless, but it's a bit of a bummer when you have a £1000 a month mortgage on a one bedroom flat and your neighbours are given a house for nothing and only pay a couple of hundred a month in rent. True story.

Anonymous said...

Swings and roundabouts, we all get something from the state, be it medical treatment, university education, you try paying the full market price.

JPM said...

Let's all just give those rather large, lifelong homeloans away and live in giveaway Utopia Drive.

Immigrant friends of mine did...Got themselves a council flat at an 'affordable' rent. This then allowed them to save enough of their disposable income to by it through a mortgage. (Odd that isnt it. It needed to be affordable to rent - and then when it was they bought it.) They're now thinking about renting it out and buying another to live in.
Their question to me: WHY DOES YOUR COUNTRY JUST GIVE IT AWAY?

(And no I'm not making up that response, Nor the fact that they claimed as 'immigrants' they should be allowed to do so.)

JPM said...

Loveaduck... I meant to say that they expressed their surprise at being allowed to do so - and not that they felt good about taking from the nation's breadwinners.

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

True, we all get something from the state but at the end of the day the government has to balance its books just like every other company. Some people will get substantially less from the state and some others may contribute more. As long as this is distributed in a fair way, then who really cares.

Some others will actually 'play the state' and work around loop holes in order to get what they want.

If a person has nothing to lose then they have everything to gain and for some people who are more 'aggressive' in pursuing this they will go for whatever they can get.

My personal view is that I think this is disproportionately seen more in people who did not grow up in richer western countries as they have higher incentives. It's the old argument over relative poverty and absolute poverty. I'm certainly not saying western people are angels as they have incentives if suffering from relative poverty. However, those from poorer non-western countries suffer from both relative and absolute poverty and thus may have higher incentives...

JPM said...

Well... I found the 'English' equally incentivised. It's not just immigrants... I now regret using that example for fear it may be hijacked as an I told You So.

It's simple really. There are those who will get in the rowing boat and row, those who try to row and don't have the stamina, and those with eternal back complaints.

ross said...

@nick

"And by the way - why are you still banging on about the London Plan when your own blog references the fact that Lewisham doesn't have to adhere to the targets set for London in general?"

selective quoting again there nick, boroughs don't have to adhere to the targets if they can demonstrate compensating benefits that accrue to the community from developments that provide below the target level of affordable housing. if you take the time to read what i wrote about that in my blog, you will see that despite repeated requests to the council to clarfiy what these supposed benefits are, they are not forthcoming on that particular area

regardles of all that however, the london plan covers all of london - lewisham, the last time i checked was part of london, and decisions taken by them to deviate from said plan should be highlighted and decision makers held to account for the reasons for that deviation (or do your standards for public accountability not stretch to things that you don't like)

ross said...

@appp

"Some people, i'm afraid, are completely lazy...."

has caroline flint borrowed your login

ross said...

"but it's a bit of a bummer when you have a £1000 a month mortgage on a one bedroom flat and your neighbours are given a house for nothing"

maybe, although if the deal your neighbours is getting is so great why don't you become like them and live what is undoubtedly a brilliant and carefree life, you'd be made not to take up that opportunity

i guess though if said family was made homeless you'd find it less of a 'bummer'

tell me though, did you benefit from a university education in this country? if so, did you pay the full cost of it?

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

Maybe, I would certainly argue that England isnt one of the most richer western countries anymore.

Its interesting how people make decisions, if for example a person is hungry and ate a packet of crisps, the benefit they get from eating it will be higher then the benefit from eating a fifth packet of crips as the person would of eaten four previously already.

With housing, everyone should have a place to call home, i see it as a basic need. Some people want to have more than one house (like the fatso wanting a fifth packet of crisps) but this destroys the principle of why cheap housing was made available in the first place and certainly there would be others more deserving.

If you come from a background whereby it is acceptable to rely on the state for help then a proportion of those people will recognise not to exploit it (cutting the hand that feeds you i think is the expression).

This is the case from the 1950's - 1970's when the economic structure (and hence peoples perspective on things) of the UK was quite different to what it is now.

Those who were brought up in the UK, and whose parents were around in the 1950's - 1970's will undoubtedly see things differently to those who have recently come to the UK in the present economic climate which is geared more towards 'the winner takes it all'.

What I think we need to do, and will take time, is for everyone in the Uk 'presently' to recognise that robbing from the state is robbing from themselves.

We are still in a period of transition at the moment so I do not think we are there yet.

Brockley Nick said...

@ross

It's not 'selective quoting' if I don't quote you.

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

@ross, i had a university education, but had no help from my parents and had two jobs whilst studying.

I did not get a grant and currently have a student loan, paying interest above inflation.

i was luckly enough to win a scholarship to go to UCL to do a MSC in Econ from the government.

Whats your point?

ross said...

"Some people will get substantially less from the state and some others may contribute more. As long as this is distributed in a fair way, then who really cares."

indeed, benefit fraud by individuals costs something like £20m a year to the taxpayer

tax evasion & avoidance by the already wealthy costs billions a eyar

profesional run benefit fraud schemes run by wealthy professional criminal gangs cost something like £1bn a year to the taxpayer

but yeah, people are lazy, let's take it out on those just trying to make ends meet, and skim over where the real crimes are taken place

ross said...

@nick

"It's not 'selective quoting' if I don't quote you"

i thought you university types would be more educated than this

surely if you recount an idea put forward by someone in an essay you're expected to reference it

if subsequently the idea that you recounted (and perhaps argued against) was found out to be a misrepresentation of that idea, then i think that it would be fair to say that you have either misquoted or misrepresented that person's position, the choice of semantics used to describe that situation is really neither here nor there (at least outwith the world of academia)

however you feel free to rely on pedantry rather than address the actual real issue

ross said...

@apppppp

"Whats your point?"

my point was that you paid nowhere near the all in cost of providing you that education as it's heavily subsidied by the state

but don't get me wrong, i'm not against such a thing, far from it, even if i didn't benefit from it myself

my point however is to show that some times you get benefit from the state that others don't get (or in the case of education ever have a hope in hell of getting), but to single those things out and say it's a 'bummer' that other people get them, is not exactly the most progressive of attitudes, especially when the alternative is having someone made homeless so that your (not you personally) level of 'bummerism' is not as high as it was when your neighbours had a stable roof over their head

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

@ross, i respect what you are saying but frankly we are both talking in the realms of politics and trying to somehow vent our frustrations!

My basic points are:
1. Education should be free at the point of use and open to ALL.
2. We should protect children/young people and enhance a inclusive environment for them.
3. As an adult, individually you are responsible for your own actions as you have the 'capacity' and 'experience' to make your own decisions what to do and what not to do. As well as 'rights' adults have 'RESPONSIBILITY' which often is forgotton.
4. Collectively, as adults we are responsible for looking after points 1 & 2.

Unfortunately you get some adults who act like children and cry cry and cry some more to get what they want and do not contribute at all to our social goals.

They should not benefit from the rest of us.

To make it more relevant, I 'disagree' in principle with giving away houses to adults, but would expect much more support than presently given to children, esp. those for pooer families.

If you are one of the unlucky buggers who came from a poor family but are now grown up but wants to 'better themselves', then i think there is ample opportunity nowadays, esp in london to get further 'free/subsidised' education from the state and you really should stop winging about it.

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

the last sentance i wrote sounded abit nasty, but hopefully you can understand what i was trying to say!

JPM said...

In the face of sarcasm and twisted logic... be nasty with that guy.

I didn't have a university education, was born into a hell of a lot of poverty... and so what? You get in the boat, you row. And if the parents of a fellow rower were wealthy enough to pay for his or her (rowing) education, so what? They would have me right next to them learning how to copy what they learned buckshee. (Although I may agree with some of what this man has to say it's the way he says it that is both smug and distateful.)

Anonymous said...

Stangely over in Manor Park (Hither Green)a similar situation arose and the council gained an Interim Empty Dwelling Management Order.

The property remains in the hands of the owner but the council will bring the property back into use.

This is a recent power given to councils.

The report shows the owner had been approached a number of times, has anyone checked the situation at Manor Avenue with enforcement officers?

Could it be at Manor Avenue the council had the keys but not the ownership?

Headhunter said...

Anyway, enough of the bitching and back to the point. That house on Manor Avenue had new windows put in about 4 or 5 months ago (previously it had no windows at all) and has a brand new roof on it so someone has taken time and money to bring it a little closer to habitable standard or perhaps they were obliged to do that by the council?

ross said...

ok, fair point, last point on it

@appppp

"Unfortunately you get some adults who act like children and cry cry and cry some more to get what they want and do not contribute at all to our social goals.

They should not benefit from the rest of us."

mabye, however it's interesting that this comment is only ever aimed at people struggling to get by claiming a few bob a week to put a roof over their head and feed themselves & family, and not at for example the recent gaggle & clamour for govt/state assistance by financial institutions (who make billions a year for their shareholders) to be bailed out (by taxpayers money & support) of a mess that they themselves created, and one motivated purely by greed without regard to the longer term consequences, what 'social goals' did these people every contribute to, i'd say the financial costs of messes like this by far dwarf the type of things talked about here in terms of a small proportion of the country being provided affordabe access to housing, however as mentioned these things never seem to get looked at in the same way, instead they are more likely to be commended than condemed


"If you are one of the unlucky buggers who came from a poor family but are now grown up but wants to 'better themselves', then i think there is ample opportunity nowadays, esp in london to get further 'free/subsidised' education from the state and you really should stop winging about it."

maybe, but the problem goes much deeper than that , given most social mobility 'potential' is set in stone at a very early age in life, it's not as easy as you might think for someone who has went through a system of schooling that pretty much was nothing more than a holding pen until they could leave at 16 and get a YTS scheme paying £29 a week (or the modern day equivalent), to embark on any kind of further education, there's a whole heap of baggage and cultural & economical shutters that prevent a lot of people from actually realising their 'potential', and anyway given that social moility has pretty much went into decline since 1979, there's not much empirical evidence to support the case that if you get off your arse and 'row the boat' then everything will be just fine, it's just daft protestant work ethic dressed up to suit the needs of capital, and it usually tends to be the lucky few who have managed to pull themselves out of a sh*t start to life that shout the most about it (followed closely by the already priveleged)

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

If it is still owned by the council then they are obliged to bring property upto a harbitable standard (i.e. to gain a habitation certificate). This is why alot of the council houses are being refurbished to meet the new legal requirements.

It would be a technicality on the councils side though, considering they issue them.

I've even heard of people 'wrecking a house' to get the habitiation certificate removed, and then buying the house at a substanitally reduced price, making the neccessary improvements and making loads of profit during the process!

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

@ross,

I think you have made some very good points, alot of big semi-instutional like entities really shouldn't make the level of profits they do in the market place privately as they are in a position of something approaching a natural monopoly (and therefore shoulder no risk). Some elements should be transferred to public hands.

The problem is that even though i despise the mass move to market consolidation (where only a few large corporates dominate in an industry - tescos to name one) we have to compete on a global scale. This means a 'uk company' in order to compete abroad, needs to be larger to shoulder larger risks, otherwise they will be gobbled up by other large corporates. I'm thankful that we still have Barclays amoungst other things.

I know this doesnt justify the ills that we see within the UK (generically within the boundries of a particular country) there is a different game being played. The government is only one player out ot many in international trade/political relations.

That is one of the benefits of EU enlargement/integration.

JPM said...

Headhunter... the first thing a builder should do when acquiring a derelict property is 'seal the envelope'.

In this case it would have been a provision set down by the authority or insurers etc.

I think I did hear from a neighbour that an Interim Empty Dwelling Management Order has recently been made against it - but clearly the Council has been slow to move on this. But given that this is Brockley there will be few surprises there.

Tom said...

If they need someone to live there, I'll move in. Manor Avenue is my favourite street in Brockley (except for its parking problems). It's a tough job but someone's got to do it!

Yawn. One of the nice things about Brockley Central is its refreshing lack of angry Marxist men shouting about the inequities of life, while accusing everyone else of personal, moral and political failings.

Oh. My mistake.

ross said...

@apppp

i know where you're coming from, but there's no point getting into a debate about that here as we're miles apart on our starting points

however the point of raising it was not really to moan about high corporate profits per se, or to make any point abouts the globalised economy, but instead to purely point out that we never hear the same cries of derision from people in regards to companies (or more specifically the market as a whole) going cap in hand to the state when times get bad and begging to be bailed out by taxpayers money & support, (while when times are good lecturing us all on how govt/state should not interfere in the market as it disrupts the 'natural laws' of the market - a position, btw, which is completely unsupportable from even the most friedmanesque of free market proponents, modern day markets are man made constructs which are kept in operation by an incredible amount of state intervention, their not natural organisms that the free marketers make them out to be)

so anyway, my point is that there's far more begging bowls being held up by large wealthy companies & individuals, yet it's odd that the people who criticise a small proportion of the population being given access to housing at below market prices, never seem to be anything like as vocal in condeming the far far bigger cost of providing state handouts & support to already extremely wealthy individuals & institutions

ross said...

"Yawn. One of the nice things about Brockley Central is its refreshing lack of angry Marxist men shouting about the inequities of life, while accusing everyone else of personal, moral and political failings."

yep, wouldn't it be great if everybody just thought exactly the same

oh, my mistake......zz

Headhunter said...

JPM, it didn't have any windows for a long time - I moved onto Manor Ave in Sept 06 and for about a year from that date it only had open spaces where the windows were supposed to be. It was probably like that for a long time before that so it doesn't seem that a new owner suddenly put new windows in. I'm wondering if the people in the neighbouring house have hassled the council - they must be annoyed as their house looks quite smart and well kept and their house is basically attached to a derelict building site!

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

@ross,

You do have a point there. The way i see it is that for the vast majority of people, individually, they can do nothing against the large corporates/semi-institutions.

Lewisham council cannot even stand up against it's preferred contractor for highway maintaince (conway) for fear of being punished with hugh penalities. (if anyone asks why i know this then its a seperate thread me thinks).

However, the same people can actually do something about the people who are taking the country for a ride at a isolated level.

What i would say, is that ross, just becuase you do not hear anything about holding large corp/institutions to account does not mean it does not happen.

On a national level, embassys get involved, and can appeal against unfavouritism towards certain corps etc. behind the scenes, some serious action could happen as a result, even towards certain indiviudals.,....

Can we please talk about the common now??? i got really excited this morning i nearly wet myself when i saw the builders (and i dont mean in that way...thankyou!).

Anonymous said...

Yawn

I wish they would save their interminable monologues on political theorising for an audience that might appreciate it. Get thee hence to urban75. This site is a modest blog about Brockley. It canna cope with these monstrous polemics.

tyrwhitt michael said...

Hear Hear to Anon @ 18.03

Can't you guys go on question time or stand for parliament or something?

What I want is an update on the microecononic issue of the Talbot. Are you out there Jamie @ The Honor Oak?

JPM said...

Headhunter...

Many neighbours have hassled the council about this derelict building.

The windows and roof were done under the purchase agreement, either by the council (does it matter?) or the developer who now has very little money to finish. Either the council should finish it (in which case more social housing on MA) or the developer, who probably paid little for it in the first instance.

Anonymous said...

Does a price of £365,000 in 2006 seem reasonable?

Anonymous said...

Well, let's see now. The bottom floor would go for £365k (upwards), the ground for £180k (upwards), and the top maisonette for £380k (upwards). A single house given that it is end terrace and quite large could achieve circa £1million.

PeterMasters said...

oh my god. I've not been on BC for a fair few months and was initially impressed to see posts generating 40/50/60+ posts on them.. but when I actualyl read the threads well it's pretty depressing. Seems to have turned into one of a typical number of flamer populated online forums with people point scoring and ratcheting up petty vendettas. And as for jpm colonel blimp banging on about immigrants.. words fail me. Sorry to see that it's come to this Nick. I'm just waiting for someone to invoke the Nazis and then you're right up there.

Headhunter said...

PeteMasters - gotta agree there! When I 1st started posting here back in March or April I think last year, it was just full of local people having pleasant but irrelevant chats about the local areas, getting excited about potential new cafes and the possibility (or not) of Brockley becoming the new Clapham, but the population here has changed with everyone bitching at each other about socio economics... Can we lighten up? I propose discussing which house in the conservation area has the prettiest front garden or window box... Socio political activists need not apply....

Brockley Nick said...

Yes, although PeterMasters is a self-styled blogger-provocateur, so perhaps not the best person to call others flamers.

JPM said...

Pete Masters Very Little. I hope it's a few more months until your next return. Perhaps then you can polish up your research.

Banging on about immigrants? Here's what I said.

"Immigrant friends of mine did...Got themselves a council flat at an 'affordable' rent."

A description used by them. (Not me.)

I also qualified this in a later post, which you obviously were blind to. It read:

"Well... I found the 'English' equally incentivised. It's not just immigrants... I now regret using that example for fear it may be hijacked as an I told You So."

Remarkable prescience? No, I didn't want it lifted by someone with a racist agenda. Little did I realise that I would need it to counter a liberal one. (However, I figure posters such as yourself may not always being following a political agenda. More on this later - after a little research.)

Moving on from the hypocriticaly point scoring from a questionable source...

I bumped into a neighbour this morning who spoke about the property in question. In fact he lives nearby, and will no doubt have something to say on a call for this to be turned to 'social' housing. The property next door to him is - and a bunch of drunks and addicts have just moved in. Kept him and his two kids, and the neighbour's baby up all night. But hey, if that's social keep it.

Anonymous said...

It's unrealistic to expect a forum to remain the same as when it was first created; things evolve.

Especially as Nick and consequently the blog are increasing in profile in the wider community through his column in SE4 magazine.

Brockley people and visitors to this blog are interesting and interested in lots of things. They naturally want to discuss them, inspite of the format limitations.

A forum attached to this blog or this blog migrating to forum format a'la Hither Green's site would be one way to address some of the concerns mentioned, but it would require a lot more input; moderators and is that fair to ask of Nick.

JPM said...

This is the information provided by Peter Masters blog.

"About Me. Opinionated [yes, we know], controversial [?], contradictory [YES.] and anonymous [BUT WHY?]."

And that's the sum of the blog.

He seems to have appeared in the Pro Gambling Camp not so long ago, and is probably more Trojan than liberal.

ross said...

"When I 1st started posting here back in March or April I think last year, it was just full of local people having pleasant but irrelevant chats about the local areas, getting excited about potential new cafes and the possibility (or not) of Brockley becoming the new Clapham, but the population here has changed with everyone bitching at each other about socio economics..."

open blogs are not really the best form to ensure you can have this though, it's impossible to run an open discussion forum of any kind whilst hoping that it heavily self-moderates itself in regards to the topics of discussion that unfold upon them

if nobody wanted to have discussions that go beyond the type of things you mention in your post then they wouldn't happen, because it takes more than one person to have a discussion, the very fact that topics that perhaps go beyond the original stated aim of brockly central arise and are discussed is testemant to the fact that some people actually want to discuss them, and furthermore some people think that you can't actually seperate out the bigger from the smaller issues

if the people who run this site want to continue to run it on this format and at the same time expand their viewing & comments statistics then there's no way that you will achieve your perfect idyllic view of what this place should be there for

if keeping the discussion specific to those original aims is more important than volume, then it should be run on a forum basis, open to everyone to read but not necassirly open for everyone to post on, only 'trusted' people can then be allowed to post (however even with this i think you'd find the debate would still widen as that's what human's do to an extent, especially on formats like this which are ostensibly to spend time on when we're meant to be working, or at least it's the only reason i'm here)

this approach however does involve fairly heavy handed controlling by those in charge to achieve those aims, and i think it's important to understand that you can't expect an 'open community' like this, run on this format, to self moderate itself to achieve those aims

however, to help that process along its way, this will be my last post on brockley central, i don't particularly have much in common with most of those here, however i do think that it's about time that the internet was used in a way to bring local communities together and i think it's clear that this site does this quite well (albeit a fairly homogenous & specific section of that community), as for some time now it (the internet) has pretty much had the opposite effect, encouraging peole into deeper atomisation within their real physical society whilst preferring to use exciting new technology to talk to people from greenland or whereever in preference to things on their doorstep (or as a means of avoiding what's on their doorstep), creating an even more fragmented & individualist society

see ya

Bea said...

Bye, Ross (for now) - somehow I'm sure you'll be back.

Anonymous said...

I think you neeed to look again at 14,Manor Avenue. It now looks like one of the nicest houses on the street, sorry 'Avenue'.

Headhunter said...

Glad that I am that number 14 is no longer derelict, I wish they hadn't concreted the front garden and built those nasty shed like structures (bin stores?). They bring the whole building down - complete grot.

Anonymous said...

I do agree, in part, but if you visit the Planning Portal at Lewisham Council you will see it was a requirement of our illustrious council, the original proposal was rejected insisting the bin and bicycle stores were covered and secure.

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!