Robert Wakeham's comments
Eric Reynolds' objections collide head on with the assessment of the Council's planning officers - and, looking at the second and (particularly) the third image, it's easy to see where Mr Reynolds is coming from, but a great deal more difficult to understand the planning officers' point of view.
'Onwards and upwards' seems to be at risk of becoming a holy mantra in London, with dissenters viewed as spoilsports.
And when does the incentive of affordable housing gain become a bribe?
If Boris flies in the face of the blindingly obvious he deserves the same fate as Icarus.
Perhaps, in the same way that the increasing disparity between Singapore and the rest of Malaya eventually led to Singapore breaking away as a separate city-state, it's time to think of England (let alone Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) breaking away from a London city-state, the way things are going.
Intriguing - and what's that on the mess room gable, please?
'...glulam timber beams grown close to the site.' - leaving aside the obvious question, did the timber come from trees grown close to the glulam fabricator's workshop, was this close to the site?
Mr Finch, so would Disneyland, how about one for London - say in Kensington Gardens?
So, if I read this correctly, the local authority thinks that minimising the financial risks to investors in a property development takes precedence over the rights to light of neighbouring properties.
Surely the building and planning codes cover the validity of rights to light - and if PLP's design infringes the relevant standards, and the local authority responsible for policing the standards has chosen instead to overturn them, where does that leave Lipton Rogers, AXA Real Estate, and the the City of London - let alone PLP?
I wonder if the original abandoned development on this site infringed rights to light - if not, is this a case of developers playing 'slowly slowly catchee monkey'?
I wonder if 'listing the Thames from Tower Bridge to Putney Bridge' would have seen Historic England intervening in the debate about the Garden Bridge?
It's surely not just on the skyline that Londoners deserve more say.
I wonder if one function of a City Architect would be to help to add respectability to the antics of any future mayor who adopted the 'Boris Johnson' style of governance?
Presumably part of 'the strong economic case' for relocation the existing station is the real estate value of the site, and demolishing Crewe station is surely no great historic or architectural loss - unlike the flattening of the Euston Arch fifty years ago.