Are Planning Regs fit for purpose.

[chris p bacon]

No, that is really what you do not need.

What you need is buildings fit for purpose, not just now but in a century. Rather like 1930s council houses still are.

Re-use what you do have - and make whatever you need to add be just as good as what is there before, both functionally and aesthetically.

In the 1930's some council houses were still being built with outside privies.

 

All of the council housing in this area has undergone massive expenditure in the 1980's to update and extend for bathrooms and kitchens (I worked on a lot) even now they are starting to be dated again, they are not that bad but they certainly aren't that good either,  9" brickwork and no insulation. 

[jjb1970]

If a person has (for example) a 200K mortgage on a house, only to see a sudden and significant drop in the properties' value due to adverse develop, they could then very easily end up with negative equity which could blight them for years to come (as many thousands of families found in the 90's IIRC, though not in fairness due to development issues).  Nothing to do with being greedy in my book.

 

There is only one thing that matters with respect to a mortgage if you buy a house primarily as a place to live - can you afford the repayments? If you can afford the repayments then housing market down cycles are no big deal. Prices go up, prices go down and it is unlikely that over the term of a mortgage you will lose. Conversely, it doesn't matter how much a price rises if you cannot afford the repayments, yes you won't be in negative equity (unless interest arrears outpace the increase in value) but you can't afford the house and a booming market means your choices elsewhere in the area will be more limited.

If you view a house as an investment then negative equity matters, or perhaps more commonly if you want to use your house as collateral to gain access to credit then it matters however those are your own private affairs to manage as you see fit. If a neighbour building another house damages those aspects then of course I can understand why you'd not be happy but let's not pretend that the one is greed if preventing a neighbour maximising their lands values to protect our own isn't greed. I do not consider either to be greed, I consider both to be rational self interest but if we are going to use a pejorative term like "greed" to apply to one then it applies to both.

Successive governments going back 30 or 40 years have deliberately used asset inflation as an engine of economic growth in this country with the result that a house is no longer primarily a means to live but an investment for many. Now if people want to invest in houses that is their choice but if you invest then you accept the risk that the value can go down and I do not see that it is the job of local government to protect the value of investments.

Ultimately it is about freedom. If a neighbour is damaging the quality of life for others by excessive noise or poor behaviour then I think it is reasonable to take action as what they are doing is damaging the quality of others. What they do with their land however is their business and if they want to do an extension or develop their land then it is their business. If you view your house as primarily an asset then you have the opportunity to do the same.

[The Stationmaster]

Here we go again. If you cut the sarcastic remarks you won't look like a troll.

 

To answer your points.

 

I'm often asked by people "If I buy a plot of land will you build the house of my dreams" my answer is "No, I'll build a house the planner wants you to live in"

 

Over the years I've submitted applications for houses and they've been rejected because "They have too much detail of the local vernacular design" or "They are too sympathetic to the neighbouring properties"  As a developer I don't get to choose what we build, it comes about after some protracted negotiations with the LPA until a design is reached, that conforms to what they want to pass. 

 

 

As for renovation, You have to realise that the built enviroment we have now has come about over several hundred years and what you regard as a "historical built environment" hides some of the poorest buildings it's possible to live in. In Potton people think they are buying a Victorian Terraced cottage until surveyed and then they find a (very poor) timber framed building from the late 1700/early 1800's that are so expensive to renovate that they are in a state of limbo as planning won't allow major works to bring them up to a modern standard. They are just about mortgageable so they end up as cheap but poor housing.

The sad fact is that some designs of house that people find "quaint or attractive" are actually inefficient and wasteful and are too expensive to bring up to a modern standard of living.

 

I live in a Victorian house,  outside is original (except windows)  but inside it is a modern house, I renovated it 17 years ago, and it would at the time have been far cheaper to have demolished it and built it again. 

 

Interesting - in our vicinity several houses have been demolished, one quite recently, and have been replaced by buildings in what might best be described as 'Thames Valley upper-class Edwardian vernacular' style.  In the most recent case two detached houses in this style have been built on a site previously occupied by a single detached house although the other near us simply replaced a 1960s (detached) build on the same site.  And strangely going back to the OP in our road two adjacent detached buildings (on a house and the other a bungalow) were demolished build a terrace of three - which happened to be much taller than the original buildings.  

No impact at all on house prices, the road is still 'desirable' according to estate agents and the prices properties fetch when they appear on the market.

 

When we applied for Planning Permission for our house back in 2006 the principal objector was the builder who lived next door and the grounds for his objection were little short of ludicrous, but he was well in with the Planning Dept so they listened to him -

 

1. Loss of light - although his house was south of our site.  The Planning Officer came to view in respect of the objections and I made sure I was only avaiIable in the afternoon so that when I took him into the dining room of the bungalow we intended to demolish I had to turn the light on as it was in shadow cast by the objector's house (incidentally when the objector had submitted his plans some tears previously north & south had been reversed on the plans).

 

2.  He wanted the new building setback further from the road than the existing one where I had the front wall on exactly the same alignment as the bungalow that was to be demolished.  Apart from rebuilding on an existing line I also proved to the Planning Officer that the bungalow had in fact been built more than a couple of yards behind the Building Line (when such a thing existed) by producing the original site plan - second objection demolished.  There is in fact room to park a large pick-up truck and trailer in the distance between the house and the front gate.

 

3. Our 'friendly' neighbour also didn't like the fact that the new build's southern wall would be 3 feet closer to the boundary on his side than the bungalow had been and objected to it as over-development - dismissed as there is still 5 feet at the closest point between the house wall and the boundary and the boundary then runs away from the house the further you go from the road.

 

There were also objections about the height of the building - which were rather daft as the street view ruling applied to us has been totally ignored in more recent builds in the road,  I got round it by lowering the roofline although while the result means occasional banging of heads in the attic the resultant angle doesn't look too bad.

 

On the day our Planning Permission was granted our 'friendly' neighbour put his house on the market - and the bloke who bought it is a great chap (who now has plans to extend - fully discussed with us before he even put them in to the Planners).  The house on the other side has incidentally been extended on three occasions since it was built in the late 1940s.

[Joseph_Pestell]

We have had more than our fair share of battles with local planners and conservation officers over the years.

 

There is not much wrong with the regulations and guidance, some of which has been modified in recent years. The problem mainly arises from bizarre interpretation of the regulations by some planners, and hopeless inconsistency. It's the inconsistent decisions which lead to people believing that corruption is involved.

 

While I don't condone builders/developers who build something that has not been permitted, it is often the best solution if you want to bring the planners to their senses. Enforcement action is costly so they have to be very certain of winning before they will go down that route. So a retrospective application will often pass when an application made before building would not.

 

Discussing this last week with a local builder, we both agreed that it is usually worth including something in the plans that you know the planners don't like. So he often puts in applications for dormers on jobs where all that is wanted is a Velux rooflight. The planners, happy that they have "won" on the dormer, let other things go.

 

There are places where "garden-grabbing" is acceptable. With a suitable new access road, why not create infill housing where neighbours with large gardens are agreed about it. But that is quite a different matter from the sort of shed that Horsetan is having to put up with in his neighbours' gardens. LB Barnet should be threatened with legal action if they do not act in accordance with the law and enforce against these people.

 

Finally, I do have evidence that corruption occurs. But it is rarely of the direct "used fivers in a brown envelope" kind. It is more about favours and influence.

[Bernard Lamb]

This is Barnet. Barnet don't give a damn.

I have just come back from a very pleasant afternoon in Abbots Gardens, East Finchley, which comes under Barnet.

There was no sign of any odd structures in any back gardens,. In fact the whole area was very refined.

maybe Barnet council do not care, but it would seem that the residents in some parts do care and have enough clout to influence the council to keep it that way.

Bernard

[Horsetan]

I have just come back from a very pleasant afternoon in Abbots Gardens, East Finchley, which comes under Barnet.There was no sign of any odd structures in any back gardens,. ....

You need to come over here.

[polybear]

I have just come back from a very pleasant afternoon in Abbots Gardens, East Finchley, which comes under Barnet.

There was no sign of any odd structures in any back gardens,. In fact the whole area was very refined.

maybe Barnet council do not care, but it would seem that the residents in some parts do care and have enough clout to influence the council to keep it that way.

Bernard

 

That'll be where the staff of Barnet Council Planning Dept. live.......

[Horsetan]

That'll be where the staff of Barnet Council Planning Dept. live.......

East Finchley is basically next door to Hampstead Garden Suburb / Winnington Road / The Bishop's Avenue, which is where some seriously wealthy people live (as well as quite a lot of foreign-owned empty properties).

[Dungrange]

I "used" to live in a green belt area.  I still live there, but they found a way of shifting the goalposts, as they do.

 

 

Personally I think greedy builders that "infill" long standing street patterns should be "prevented" but that's how its legislated.

 

Houses should be re-made to suit modern life, not lose their gardens to profit grabbers  

 

These two opposing points of view best highlight the problems that planners face, because you can't please everyone.  Migration, increasing life expectancy, a trend to getting married later in life and more marriages ending in divorce are just some of the reasons why there is need to build more homes in the UK.  These homes have to be built somewhere, so where do you suggest they are built?  

 

Basically there are three choices: build on green field sites, thus encouraging urban sprawl and the loss of the natural environment; build on brownfield sites; or infill between existing development.  In general, there is a desire to protect greenfield sites and encourage developers to look at either filling gaps between existing development or returning formerly developed land, such as an old factory site, to fulfil another purpose such as housing. However, where there is limited opportunity for infill development and no brownfield sites to develop, demand for housing can only be met by developing greenfield sites and in such instances planners will try to identify the least damaging locations for development, which can fit with other needs such as schools, public transport provision etc.  

 

If infill development were to be 'prevented', as suggested by LBRJ, then this would only speed up the loss of greenfield sites, which in my opinion is not desirable.  I therefore have no particular issues with infill development, although it is important that the proposed development fits into the area.  Although I objected to development of an infill site in my own street in 2015, that was solely because the developer wanted to construct a four storey, 42 bedroom care home with insufficient parking in a street characterised by two storey semi-detached properties.  The proposed ridge line was some 5.25 metres higher than the houses on my side of the road, the proposed building was much more massive than any other building in the street and it would have resulted in the loss of a number of protected trees.  Thankfully the planning officer recommended rejection for a long list of reasons.  Planning permission has subsequently been granted for four semi-detached homes, which is a far more appropriate use of the land, even if I don't particularly like the architectural style that has been approved.   

[Colin_McLeod]

Make your house look like a right Sh!thole around the time he wants to sell the houses (derelict car in the garden, loud heavy metal music playing, rubbish in the garden, rabid rottweiler etc.).  Make the b'stad struggle for his money

Why?

[LBRJ]

In the 1930's some council houses were still being built with outside privies.

 

All of the council housing in this area has undergone massive expenditure in the 1980's to update and extend for bathrooms and kitchens (I worked on a lot) even now they are starting to be dated again, they are not that bad but they certainly aren't that good either,  9" brickwork and no insulation. 

 

Building renovation and brown field development is always a better option than greenfield or infill. It may sometimes "cost more" in pure ££ but the loss of communities and space for people is a heavy price.

Lets say i am much more in favour of  Urban Splash and a lot less Barrett in the approach to future housing needs.

[chris p bacon]

Building renovation and brown field development is always a better option than greenfield or infill. It may sometimes "cost more" in pure ££ but the loss of communities and space for people is a heavy price.

Lets say i am much more in favour of  Urban Splash and a lot less Barrett in the approach to future housing needs.

Part of the problem with Brown field development is when it is a single site adjacent to existing commercial/factory sites.  An example in this town is a cosmetics company that closed ( moved to Poland) and the site lay empty for some time, it was the only commercial site on one side of the road with factories on the other. one of these is a concrete block plant which runs 24 hours a day. The site was listed in the 10 year plan as residential so Kiers purchased, Sound/noise surveys were carried out and as a result mitigating measures to reduce noise were taken into account in the design of the site. It then went through the normal planning process and was given permission. When the first occupants arrived (Social rather than purchased) within a week there were complaints about noise from the concrete plant and the enviromental health officer issued a notice to the factory to reduce the noise. The only way was to cease production overnight but as it is a 24 hour a day operation that isn't possible as the kilns would cool. 

The existing factories had objected to the residential infill as they feared that the 2 don't mix. It was settled eventually with the plant production continuing as before. The housing association offered a rent reduction and the complaints stopped overnight.

 

An issue with renovation is that no matter how much money you throw at some houses, they just don't come up to a reasonable standard.   At present my project is a shop to house conversion, it is near the station and there are now parking restrictions outside to stop commuters parking on the street and blocking the road, this meant that as a retail premises it had no value as it is isolated from the main town area. Built in 1875 it has had very little, if any money spent on it,  and now has severe structural problems due to damp rotting the internal timber structure. It was unmortgageable and so had trouble finding a buyer. I purchased it and after negotiation got planning permission for its conversion. It is 2 storey (3 with the cellar) and has 10' ceilings, at 800 square feet internal it isn't huge but by stripping the building completely and reducing the ceiling height to just under 8' I am able to get a 3rd floor in and increase it to 1200 square feet making it a decent sized 2 bedroom house. I will deal with the structural stability and when finished it will be insulated to modern standards with an efficient heating system and hopefully somewhere nice to live. But with all this there comes a marmite decision. As it is opposite the oldest house in sandy (1500's) then the conservation officer got his way in making me keep the shop front, so although a house it will have a wall of glass on the pavement.  I'll do it but it is a PITA getting all that glass through building regs as it leaks heat.

The comparision with new over renovation, is that had I been able to demolish but rebuild exactly to match, then the cost of the new would have been 60% of the cost of the renovation, and a better end result.

[Bernard Lamb]

East Finchley is basically next door to Hampstead Garden Suburb / Winnington Road / The Bishop's Avenue, which is where some seriously wealthy people live (as well as quite a lot of foreign-owned empty properties).

Some time ago when my daughter was at college in London she and a friend stayed for nine months in one of those houses. The owner/resident had died recently so the people who were taking care of the estate let them move in for the three terms at a peppercorn rent, so that the house seemed to be occupied. it was a cheap way of providing security. They had the run of one floor of the place. It went down well at college or when buying anything when they were asked for their address.

The odd thing about some of the back roads in East Finchley is that nothing has been altered. All the houses have the original stained glass windows and all the gardens are maintained to an immaculate standard. The only election posters I saw were Labour as this is getting well into North London Intellectual Country.

Bernard

[Reorte]

These two opposing points of view best highlight the problems that planners face, because you can't please everyone.  Migration, increasing life expectancy, a trend to getting married later in life and more marriages ending in divorce are just some of the reasons why there is need to build more homes in the UK.  These homes have to be built somewhere, so where do you suggest they are built?

 Those are issues that need to be faced then, because just accepting the consequences and dealing with them as they arrive just means that sooner or later things end up too busy for everyone, even with those who don't have a problem right now. Damned if I know what an acceptable solution is but one thing's for certain, there never will be one as long as the question is ignored because it's too difficult or unpleasant. Where it does get worrying is when people propose pyramid scheme style "solutions". Take pensions, for example. Need more younger people working to pay for pension provision that couldn't be met - but what do you do when those younger people retire? Need even more? That approach won't end well.

 

Basically there are three choices: build on green field sites, thus encouraging urban sprawl and the loss of the natural environment; build on brownfield sites; or infill between existing development.  In general, there is a desire to protect greenfield sites and encourage developers to look at either filling gaps between existing development or returning formerly developed land, such as an old factory site, to fulfil another purpose such as housing. However, where there is limited opportunity for infill development and no brownfield sites to develop, demand for housing can only be met by developing greenfield sites and in such instances planners will try to identify the least damaging locations for development, which can fit with other needs such as schools, public transport provision etc.  

 

If infill development were to be 'prevented', as suggested by LBRJ, then this would only speed up the loss of greenfield sites, which in my opinion is not desirable.  I therefore have no particular issues with infill development, although it is important that the proposed development fits into the area.  Although I objected to development of an infill site in my own street in 2015, that was solely because the developer wanted to construct a four storey, 42 bedroom care home with insufficient parking in a street characterised by two storey semi-detached properties.  The proposed ridge line was some 5.25 metres higher than the houses on my side of the road, the proposed building was much more massive than any other building in the street and it would have resulted in the loss of a number of protected trees.  Thankfully the planning officer recommended rejection for a long list of reasons.  Planning permission has subsequently been granted for four semi-detached homes, which is a far more appropriate use of the land, even if I don't particularly like the architectural style that has been approved.

There's only so much infill possible, only so many brownfield sites around - and building on brownfield sites, whilst not an issue in itself (within reason) highlights a concern that I have of more housing, fewer jobs in an area (most of the time the businesses that used to be on the brownfield sites have moved a long way, if they still exist at all). The loss of greenfield sites is massively undesirable - I strongly feel that this country is badly over-developed and would be a lot more pleasant to live in if there was a lot less of it, the changes that have happened in the last century or so on that level are quite frankly horrifying, and nothing looks like it's set to change. That's nothing the planners are responsible for though, nothing they can do about that, and of course people need places to live, and they should be of decent quality, both physically and aesthetically.

[Zomboid]

Are planning regulations fit for purpose? That rather depends on what the purpose of them is. And I suspect that's what any disagreements would actually be about. They're certainly not so that any given individual can get their own way.

 

As for architecture, I really can't stand those modern developments that are pretending to be old. The result is generally a bit like Disneyland, but with cars parked/abandoned all over the place. I'm not saying everything should be concrete and glass, but a house built in 2016 shouldn't look like it wishes it was built in 1927. Particularly if the surrounding area was actually built a long time ago.

[chris p bacon]

As for architecture, I really can't stand those modern developments that are pretending to be old. The result is generally a bit like Disneyland, but with cars parked/abandoned all over the place. I'm not saying everything should be concrete and glass, but a house built in 2016 shouldn't look like it wishes it was built in 1927. Particularly if the surrounding area was actually built a long time ago.

That's exactly what I ask of the planners, but most objections from neighbours are because it looks like an "Alien" building and nothing like theirs so they plump for the vernacular style which doesn't always suit modern materials. If you think of metal/Crittal windows in 30's housing this is very difficult to replicate now unless using the most expensive glazing possible (X9 costings).

 

The next project is being discussed, so it blends in without it being an imposing structure I am looking at a single storey structure, clad in something like Spruce or Cedar and with a flat Sedum roof so that the only house nearby looks at a green space from the upper floors rather than a tiled roof. The neighbours seem enthusiastic  as it will only just be seen and being timber and green will blend in better. The surrounding properties are Victorian cottages, 1960's terraced (poor quality council build) 1990's and 2000's semis's and detached, the closest is 100' away.

 The planner is already murmering about having brick face and a hipped roof as that is what surrounds it. This is down a private road and can't be seen from the public highway and is only visible from the rear of most of the surrounding properties so I can't see his viewpoint.  Like most other applications I reckon we'll be in planning for upwards of 12 months wih this one, the shortest so far has been 10 months and the longest 3 years, none of them were contentious applications but that is just the way it is.

[Dungrange]

 Those are issues that need to be faced then, because just accepting the consequences and dealing with them as they arrive just means that sooner or later things end up too busy for everyone, even with those who don't have a problem right now. Damned if I know what an acceptable solution is but one thing's for certain, there never will be one as long as the question is ignored because it's too difficult or unpleasant. 

 

That's the problem - we will not all agree on an 'acceptable' solution.  Take increasing life expectancy as an example.  Life expectancy has increased over the last century due to medical advances and what were once terminal illnesses are now often curable.  This means that people live longer and therefore occupy a house for longer.  Instead of "conveniently" dying at 70 and thus making their home available to the next generation of twenty somethings, many older people now live for another 20 years.  How inconsiderate !!!! :-) That means that we now need homes for the next generation, which we wouldn't have had to find if the older generation had "conveniently" passed away sooner. Therefore the question is, do we give up on the search for cures for Cancer etc (because helping people to live longer increases the demand for housing) or do we embrace the fact that our parents may be around for longer and deal with the consequences - ie build more houses?

 

Personally, I'd build more houses, but not everyone will agree. All the planners and the planning regulations can do is deal with the consequences of the increase in demand. 

[Reorte]

As for architecture, I really can't stand those modern developments that are pretending to be old. The result is generally a bit like Disneyland, but with cars parked/abandoned all over the place. I'm not saying everything should be concrete and glass, but a house built in 2016 shouldn't look like it wishes it was built in 1927. Particularly if the surrounding area was actually built a long time ago.

This is where it gets awkward and personal taste really comes in to it and muddies the picture. I know exactly what you mean about pretending to look old and it all too often giving that fake Disneyland impression. The problem is though that I also find almost every newer design hideously ugly, hideously characterless, hideously out of place, or all of them (they sometimes work in the middle of cities).

 

That all said I don't see why a new house shouldn't look like an old one. I take the view that as time moves on and people give us new designs that just increases the choice. It shouldn't mean that the old ones are ruled out - if people like it, why not use it? I'd rather something doesn't stick out like a sore thumb - that doesn't necessarily mean trying to match the older styles. What I really hate are utterly bland housing estates that look like they're spat out by machines and could be anywhere in the country.

[Zomboid]

New houses made to look like old ones just don't, though. Aside from the fact that they aren't weathered, modern design for roads, gardens, doors etc just don't look old. Old houses didn't have integral garages or a parking space by the front door (a lot of new places don't either, I accept that...).

I realise it's a matter of taste, and people who like that kind of thing as welcome to them. I won't be joining them, though.

 

As for bland houses spat out by a machine, there are row upon row of Victorian terraces in some cities. That kind of thing isn't new, and it's a matter of volume rather than design. Frankly a lot of those Victorian terraces could be in Newcastle, Liverpool, London...

Edited May 22, 2017 by Zomboid

[Reorte]

New houses made to look like old ones just don't, though. Aside from the fact that they aren't weathered, modern design for roads, gardens, doors etc just don't look old. Old houses didn't have integral garages or a parking space by the front door (a lot of new places don't either, I accept that...).

 

As for bland houses spat out by a machine, there are row upon row of Victorian terraces in some cities. That kind of thing isn't new, and it's a matter of volume rather than design. Frankly a lot of those Victorian terraces could be in Newcastle, Liverpool, London...

True enough, but even the row upon row of Victorian terraces don't have the sheer godawful numbing nothingness that the typical more modern housing estate gives me. The terraces have other issues and I wouldn't like to have lived in one of them 100 years ago, along with half a dozen other people, but that isn't one of them.

 

As far as trying to look like old ones (weathering will happen in time, so I don't really count that), that depends on whether or not we're talking about (poor attempts at) being carbon copies or just an old style adapted to current usage. Doors, gardens and similar aren't really part of that either; no reason you can't use old styles for those if you're after an otherwise old style house. Bodging bits from different styles together doesn't work any way around, new doors for example in old styles or old doors in new styles, both just look wrong.

That's the problem - we will not all agree on an 'acceptable' solution.  Take increasing life expectancy as an example.  Life expectancy has increased over the last century due to medical advances and what were once terminal illnesses are now often curable.  This means that people live longer and therefore occupy a house for longer.  Instead of "conveniently" dying at 70 and thus making their home available to the next generation of twenty somethings, many older people now live for another 20 years.  How inconsiderate !!!! :-) That means that we now need homes for the next generation, which we wouldn't have had to find if the older generation had "conveniently" passed away sooner. Therefore the question is, do we give up on the search for cures for Cancer etc (because helping people to live longer increases the demand for housing) or do we embrace the fact that our parents may be around for longer and deal with the consequences - ie build more houses?

 

Personally, I'd build more houses, but not everyone will agree. All the planners and the planning regulations can do is deal with the consequences of the increase in demand. 

If your plan relies on building more houses and life expentency continuing upwards then sooner or later you will run out of places to build them, and long before that you'll hit a "that's too many" point for most people. That we might not reach that point until a long time in the future doesn't change the fact that a path that leads us there is one to be avoided. The unpleasant truth is that indefinite population growth, by whatever means, is ultimately unsustainable, and reaches undesirable long before that. It's probably telling that in a fair few places birth rates are dropping too, which cancels that out without having to do anything unpleasant and authoritarian.

 

Anyway like you said it's not the planners' job to deal with that, just the consequences.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Reorte

[Fenman]

... The problem is though that I also find almost every newer design hideously ugly, hideously characterless, hideously out of place, or all of them (they sometimes work in the middle of cities). ...

 

WIth respect, that's a problem for you. If I found every style to be repugnant other than, say, Yemeni mud brick houses, I would have no right to impose that on anyone else.

 

It seems to me the particular difficulty most of us have with planning and architecture is that there is a clash between, on the one hand, trying to respect that what people choose to do with their private property is a matter for them, with, on the other, trying to ensure that the worst excesses of the few are not imposed on the many.

 

It's maybe salutary to note that the environments that most people today find most attractive - quaint medieval villages or towns with winding streets - were created when there were no planning regulations of any significance. The mixture of periods and styles, which may have looked like a cacophony in earlier years, has over time all blended into a seamless whole. That traditional English church was, likely as not, a shocking piece of modernist architecture when it was first erected, utterly out of scale with everything around it, and designed in the latest style likely imported from foreign parts. At some point, the chances are someone added an overbearing extension to it in a completely different style, even if to our eyes they all now blend together.

 

Most of our dislike is fear of the unfamiliar. No doubt future generations will come to love most of that which we find distasteful.

 

Paul

[Colin_McLeod]

"Most planning objections are based on NIMBY" Discuss!

[Joseph_Pestell]

Part of the problem with Brown field development is when it is a single site adjacent to existing commercial/factory sites.  An example in this town is a cosmetics company that closed ( moved to Poland) and the site lay empty for some time, it was the only commercial site on one side of the road with factories on the other. one of these is a concrete block plant which runs 24 hours a day. The site was listed in the 10 year plan as residential so Kiers purchased, Sound/noise surveys were carried out and as a result mitigating measures to reduce noise were taken into account in the design of the site. It then went through the normal planning process and was given permission. When the first occupants arrived (Social rather than purchased) within a week there were complaints about noise from the concrete plant and the enviromental health officer issued a notice to the factory to reduce the noise. The only way was to cease production overnight but as it is a 24 hour a day operation that isn't possible as the kilns would cool. 

The existing factories had objected to the residential infill as they feared that the 2 don't mix. It was settled eventually with the plant production continuing as before. The housing association offered a rent reduction and the complaints stopped overnight.

 

An issue with renovation is that no matter how much money you throw at some houses, they just don't come up to a reasonable standard.   At present my project is a shop to house conversion, it is near the station and there are now parking restrictions outside to stop commuters parking on the street and blocking the road, this meant that as a retail premises it had no value as it is isolated from the main town area. Built in 1875 it has had very little, if any money spent on it,  and now has severe structural problems due to damp rotting the internal timber structure. It was unmortgageable and so had trouble finding a buyer. I purchased it and after negotiation got planning permission for its conversion. It is 2 storey (3 with the cellar) and has 10' ceilings, at 800 square feet internal it isn't huge but by stripping the building completely and reducing the ceiling height to just under 8' I am able to get a 3rd floor in and increase it to 1200 square feet making it a decent sized 2 bedroom house. I will deal with the structural stability and when finished it will be insulated to modern standards with an efficient heating system and hopefully somewhere nice to live. But with all this there comes a marmite decision. As it is opposite the oldest house in sandy (1500's) then the conservation officer got his way in making me keep the shop front, so although a house it will have a wall of glass on the pavement.  I'll do it but it is a PITA getting all that glass through building regs as it leaks heat.

The comparision with new over renovation, is that had I been able to demolish but rebuild exactly to match, then the cost of the new would have been 60% of the cost of the renovation, and a better end result.

Is there a gas supply to the property?

[Reorte]

WIth respect, that's a problem for you. If I found every style to be repugnant other than, say, Yemeni mud brick houses, I would have no right to impose that on anyone else.

With respect that's why I'm saying "I", I'm not attempting to impose my opinion on anyone and I get rather annoyed whenver expressing an opinion results in that accusation. It's saying "don't you dare have an opinion."

 

It seems to me the particular difficulty most of us have with planning and architecture is that there is a clash between, on the one hand, trying to respect that what people choose to do with their private property is a matter for them, with, on the other, trying to ensure that the worst excesses of the few are not imposed on the many.

 

It's maybe salutary to note that the environments that most people today find most attractive - quaint medieval villages or towns with winding streets - were created when there were no planning regulations of any significance. The mixture of periods and styles, which may have looked like a cacophony in earlier years, has over time all blended into a seamless whole. That traditional English church was, likely as not, a shocking piece of modernist architecture when it was first erected, utterly out of scale with everything around it, and designed in the latest style likely imported from foreign parts. At some point, the chances are someone added an overbearing extension to it in a completely different style, even if to our eyes they all now blend together.

 

Most of our dislike is fear of the unfamiliar. No doubt future generations will come to love most of that which we find distasteful.

Yet people do find them attractive. The buildings might've been recognisable when new but the general environment will have been tidied up a huge amount since then, which adds a lot to their appeal. The village I live in is quite pleasant. 100 years ago there would've been lime dust everywhere, and old photos make it look rather tatty, which seems pretty common. And I prefer having modern amenities in my old house.

 

I don't find the "it's just not what you're used to" argument convincing; if so then there would be an obvious dividing line between when people were born and what they like. It can happen but isn't anywhere near a general rule. It's a position that claims there's no real difference, that absolutely anything is pretty much equal and it's just what you're used to. edit to add: Not that I've a great opinion about current designs but, personally speaking of course, I certainly don't find them the worst ever built. The prize for that probably goes to the 60s, which was before I was born so can hardly be said to consist of new things that I've not got used to, seeing as they've been around for all my life.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Reorte

[Joseph_Pestell]

That's exactly what I ask of the planners, but most objections from neighbours are because it looks like an "Alien" building and nothing like theirs so they plump for the vernacular style which doesn't always suit modern materials. If you think of metal/Crittal windows in 30's housing this is very difficult to replicate now unless using the most expensive glazing possible (X9 costings).

 

The next project is being discussed, so it blends in without it being an imposing structure I am looking at a single storey structure, clad in something like Spruce or Cedar and with a flat Sedum roof so that the only house nearby looks at a green space from the upper floors rather than a tiled roof. The neighbours seem enthusiastic  as it will only just be seen and being timber and green will blend in better. The surrounding properties are Victorian cottages, 1960's terraced (poor quality council build) 1990's and 2000's semis's and detached, the closest is 100' away.

 The planner is already murmering about having brick face and a hipped roof as that is what surrounds it. This is down a private road and can't be seen from the public highway and is only visible from the rear of most of the surrounding properties so I can't see his viewpoint.  Like most other applications I reckon we'll be in planning for upwards of 12 months wih this one, the shortest so far has been 10 months and the longest 3 years, none of them were contentious applications but that is just the way it is.

And until local authorities are made to pay compensation to developers for these entirely unnecessary delays, the situation will continue. No minor planning application should need more than three months to resolve.