Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:54:05 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:06:39 +0100, Arthur Figgis ]
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:38:23 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

No building under 100 years old should be listed period.

There have been too many mistakes made in the past to simply abandon
what protection we do have.

Mistakes which were entirely driven by central planning with SFA direct
local decision making.

You seem to be confused about slightly different issues here. Are you
really saying that having fewer restrictions on what people could do
to existing buildings would stop people demolishing the same existing
buildings?

The 1947 T&C planning act abrogated planning from localities.

So why does the council keep sending me letters about flats which
someone wants to build up the road?

If we ignored everything under 100 years, we could all too easily find
ourselves with nothing - or only inferior examples - left by the time
the most important buildings were "old enough". For example, 100 years
would rule out listing anything related to the two world wars,

So.

I'd prefer it not to be simply swept away because someone who can
afford to wants to build a car park, or a Tescos or whatever. YMMMV.
I've just seen too many crap buildings to be happy with letting
developers and others get on with whatever they think will maximise
short term profits and sod the public who will have to use and look at
the results for decades.


snip

The Victorians often flattened what went before to build their
railways.

Which are now run far beyond capacity, expansion completely hamstrung by
ridiculous planning regulation.

Not really - even if you are counting things like accessibility and
safety as planning, the cost explosion brought by the
post-privatisation structure of the rail industry is hardly a planning
matter.

....

There was loads of victorian building too. Without needing Whitehall to
manage it.

"There was a valley between Buxton and Bakewell, once upon a time as
divine as the vale of Tempe... You enterprised a railroad through the
valley - you blasted its rocks away, heaped thousands of tons of shale
into its lovely stream. The valley is gone and the Gods with it, and
now, every fool in Buxton can be at Bakewell in half-an-hour, and
every fool in Bakewell at Buxton; which you think a lucrative process
of exchange - you Fools everywhere."

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:58:26 +0100, Arthur Figgis ]
wrote:


Mistakes which were entirely driven by central planning with SFA direct
local decision making.

You seem to be confused about slightly different issues here.

No, I am detailing why development in post war Britain ended up in the
current mess that it did.

Are you
really saying that having fewer restrictions on what people could do
to existing buildings would stop people demolishing the same existing
buildings?

Why should existing buildings merit centrally planned protection in the 1st
place ?

Planning + protection is a local issue.

Localities had that abrogated by Whitehall in 1947.

Give local electorates the power to protect their own buildings and they
will.


The 1947 T&C planning act abrogated planning from localities.

So why does the council keep sending me letters about flats which
someone wants to build up the road?

Because they are mere messenger boys in the process.

If we ignored everything under 100 years, we could all too easily find
ourselves with nothing - or only inferior examples - left by the time
the most important buildings were "old enough". For example, 100 years
would rule out listing anything related to the two world wars,

So.

I'd prefer it not to be simply swept away because someone who can
afford to wants to build a car park, or a Tescos or whatever. YMMMV.

Fine, make your case to the local electorate and let them decide if it
merits the cost of paying for it.

The costs of listing should not be free, if the local electorate take a
decision to impose development restrictions on private property, then its
only right and proper that the owners be compensated by the same local
electorate for loss of utility.

I've just seen too many crap buildings to be happy with letting
developers and others get on with whatever they think will maximise
short term profits

Maximised profits which only exist as a consequence of ridiculous post war
restrictions on supply.

~1.5 million semis were built entirely by the private sector between the
wars for the equivalent of 25k in today's money.

4-5 bed detached cost 30-40k.

and sod the public who will have to use and look at
the results for decades.

I'll take 220 houses spread over 20 acres of metroland over 220 flats in
the trellick tower any day.

snip

The Victorians often flattened what went before to build their
railways.

Which are now run far beyond capacity, expansion completely hamstrung by
ridiculous planning regulation.

Not really - even if you are counting things like accessibility and
safety as planning, the cost explosion brought by the
post-privatisation structure of the rail industry is hardly a planning
matter.

That's a separate issue.

Critical capacity issues existed long before privatisation. The ridiculous
process to get the CTRL through Kent is a prime case in point.

...

There was loads of victorian building too. Without needing Whitehall to
manage it.

"There was a valley between Buxton and Bakewell, once upon a time as
divine as the vale of Tempe... You enterprised a railroad through the
valley - you blasted its rocks away, heaped thousands of tons of shale
into its lovely stream. The valley is gone and the Gods with it, and
now, every fool in Buxton can be at Bakewell in half-an-hour, and
every fool in Bakewell at Buxton; which you think a lucrative process
of exchange - you Fools everywhere."


Ruskins privileged existence meant he never had to experience the realities
of living in the real world by going out to work for a living.

That line between Buxton and Bakewell like thousands of others, put food on
tables, carried people to/from work they couldn't possibly have reached
before and provided opportunity for the whole country.

Only an effete patronising snob (which pretty much sums up Ruskin) could
decry progress in such a manner.


greg

--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:


If it's not fit for purpose, it's 'niceness' is irrelevant. LT is there to
provide public transport, nothing else, it's assets are not there for the
benefit of train spotters, architecture wonks or unaccountable quangos who
don't have to pick up the tab for specious contradictory regulation.

So LU shouldn't do anything to reflect its heritage, its history and its
design excellence?

A straw man.

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?

There is absolutely no reason why you or any other public sector employee
should be provided with facilities which have higher operating costs than
equivalent ones elsewhere.

You are employed to serve the public, not the other way around.

If that means the public is better served by placing LU's back office staff
in Stockley Park rather than St James' then so be it.

If you don't like it, tough, work somewhere else.


All of the stations that are excellent examples of historical designs
should be flattened and replaced with mindless railway versions of a bus
shelter?

a.n other straw man.

I really do not understand your approach to building design and
preservation - does function always override form in your book?

When it comes to paying for it out of taxpayers money, most definitely.

'Form' has left London with a non standardised unmaintainable mess on the
underground.

Holding up long overdue refurbishment because EH consider 70-80 year old
tile work to be 'worthy' is wholly unacceptable.

Speaking as a representative of the local electorate, I'd prefer that
we have guidance from experts on what is a proper historic building
design and what is undistinguished.

Such 'advice' is only valid if the alleged experts guidance is objective.
In the case of the EH et al, it is not.

They aren't paid to be objective.

They should not be paid period if they are not.



greg
--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:43:39 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:


If it's not fit for purpose, it's 'niceness' is irrelevant. LT is there to
provide public transport, nothing else, it's assets are not there for the
benefit of train spotters, architecture wonks or unaccountable quangos who
don't have to pick up the tab for specious contradictory regulation.

So LU shouldn't do anything to reflect its heritage, its history and its
design excellence?

A straw man.

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?

There is absolutely no reason why you or any other public sector employee
should be provided with facilities which have higher operating costs than
equivalent ones elsewhere.

Does your logic also apply to the private sector? If this is the case
then I trust we will see bankers and corporate lawyers sharing the same
facilities as privatised dustmen.

You are employed to serve the public, not the other way around.

Cheers for the reminder about why I am employed. I must admit that I had
forgotten and had assumed that the millions of pounds in fares that are
paid everyday were only there to keep me in a life of unbounded luxury
while I sit on my backside doing sod all.

If that means the public is better served by placing LU's back office staff
in Stockley Park rather than St James' then so be it.

If you don't like it, tough, work somewhere else.

Are you this pathetically pedantic about everything?

All of the stations that are excellent examples of historical designs
should be flattened and replaced with mindless railway versions of a bus
shelter?

a.n other straw man.

I really do not understand your approach to building design and
preservation - does function always override form in your book?

When it comes to paying for it out of taxpayers money, most definitely.

'Form' has left London with a non standardised unmaintainable mess on the
underground.

So everything must be standardised then because standardisation is some
epitome of efficiency?

Please give examples of what you consider to be the unmaintainable mess?

Do you always buy the cheapest option in everything you purchase or do
you differentiate as to quality, longevity, aesthetics etc?

Holding up long overdue refurbishment because EH consider 70-80 year old
tile work to be 'worthy' is wholly unacceptable.

Why is it unacceptable - just because it might cost more than some rock
bottom cheap as chips option?

Speaking as a representative of the local electorate, I'd prefer that
we have guidance from experts on what is a proper historic building
design and what is undistinguished.

Such 'advice' is only valid if the alleged experts guidance is objective.
In the case of the EH et al, it is not.

They aren't paid to be objective.

They should not be paid period if they are not.

And what objective criteria should they therefore employ to achieve
their overall mandate as set down in legislation?
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:43:39 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:58:26 +0100, Arthur Figgis ]
wrote:

snip

Give local electorates the power to protect their own buildings and they
will.

By, say, drawing up a list of buildings of architectual or historic
interest? Which would mean that, erm...


snip, as this is a transport group

The Victorians often flattened what went before to build their
railways.

Which are now run far beyond capacity, expansion completely hamstrung by
ridiculous planning regulation.

Not really - even if you are counting things like accessibility and
safety as planning, the cost explosion brought by the
post-privatisation structure of the rail industry is hardly a planning
matter.

That's a separate issue.

But that is where the real costs in increasing capacity are. The cost
of installing a set of points or lengthening a platform hasn't
increased because many people prefer the atmosphere of old market
towns to central Crawley The reason we can't have trains overhanging
platform ends any more is not because of of restrictions on replacing
a K6 by the village green.

Critical capacity issues existed long before privatisation. The ridiculous
process to get the CTRL through Kent is a prime case in point.

Perhaps you'd prefer a French-style system? Central government makes a
decision, and if you are in the way of the national interest and the
glory of the state, then tough luck? Kent is a rather different
environment to Pas de Calais.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

In article ,
Greg Hennessy wrote:

Planning + protection is a local issue.

Localities had that abrogated by Whitehall in 1947.

You've said that several times but it isn't true. The Town and
Country Planning Act 1947 created the first system of nationwide
planning control by giving all local authorities the responsibility
of preparing a development plan. It did not tell them what to put
into that plan.

Before the Act only certain areas could have their local authorities
set up local development plans and decide development issues (London
was the most important - the LCC was the lead authority). There was
no responsibility to prepare a plan - it was voluntary. Other
local authorities could restrict development but only if they paid
compensation to the landowner.

Of course you could go back to this system. It delivered the
appalling Queen Anne's Mansions, on the site where the Basil Spence
brutalist Home Office is now being demolished. Queen Anne's
Mansions rose to 14 storeys over St James's Park, because its
height was unrestricted, and led Queen Victoria (who could see it
from Buckingham Palace) to demand action to restrain building
heights.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:57:46 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:


We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?

There is absolutely no reason why you or any other public sector employee
should be provided with facilities which have higher operating costs than
equivalent ones elsewhere.

Does your logic also apply to the private sector? If this is the case
then I trust we will see bankers and corporate lawyers sharing the same
facilities as privatised dustmen.

Ohh, a.n other strawman.

You are employed to serve the public, not the other way around.

Cheers for the reminder about why I am employed.

You clearly needed it.

[rest binned unread]
--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 23:16:05 +0100, Arthur Figgis ]
wrote:

Give local electorates the power to protect their own buildings and they
will.

By, say, drawing up a list of buildings of architectual or historic
interest? Which would mean that, erm...

Not a wholly unaccountable state funded and centrally run quango.

Not really - even if you are counting things like accessibility and
safety as planning, the cost explosion brought by the
post-privatisation structure of the rail industry is hardly a planning
matter.

That's a separate issue.

But that is where the real costs in increasing capacity are.

[snip]

The reason we can't have trains overhanging
platform ends any more is not because of of restrictions on replacing
a K6 by the village green.

Ridiculous nanny state interference by the HSE aside, that's only a subset
of the issue. Any major infrastructure project in the UK takes the guts of
a decade to work through a ridiculously complex self inflicted planning
process.

Projects such as the Great Central would be strangled at birth in today's
planning regime.

Critical capacity issues existed long before privatisation. The ridiculous
process to get the CTRL through Kent is a prime case in point.

Perhaps you'd prefer a French-style system?

Not entirely.

I am in favour of mandatory levels of CPO compensation set at say 1.5-2
times the market value.

I am in favour of putting the compensation regime on a sliding scale with a
tight timescale, so that if someone wants to be bloody minded, feet
dragging comes with a price attached.

I am in favour of setting a tipping point, such that those who refuse to
take the generous compensation on offer will end up facing 'compensation'
at market clearing rates once say 2/3rds of properties have signed up.

I am in favour of simplifying the process such that it doesn't entertain
the notion of taking 'evidence' from druids or anyone else unconnected with
reality.

I am in favour of terminating with extreme prejudice the careers of
qunagocrats who sabotage planning decisions ex post facto. English Nature
comes to mind in this instance.

and if you are in the way of the national interest and the
glory of the state, then tough luck? Kent is a rather different
environment to Pas de Calais.

Kent is mostly empty space.



greg


--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:39:49 +0100, David Boothroyd
wrote:

In article ,
Greg Hennessy wrote:

Planning + protection is a local issue.

Localities had that abrogated by Whitehall in 1947.

You've said that several times but it isn't true.

Are you suggesting that it didn't repeal all previous legislation and
didn't nationalise control of planning ?

The Town and
Country Planning Act 1947 created the first system of nationwide
planning control by giving all local authorities the responsibility
of preparing a development plan. It did not tell them what to put
into that plan.

Plans which required the ultimate approval of whitehall for execution.
Next.


Of course you could go back to this system.

Works for me.

It delivered the appalling Queen Anne's Mansions,

Only 'appalling' to architecture equivalent of train spotters.

on the site where the Basil Spence
brutalist Home Office is now being demolished.

What it replaced was far preferable.

Queen Anne's
Mansions rose to 14 storeys over St James's Park, because its
height was unrestricted,

It's replacement rose to 14 stories too, your point ?

Or was it preferable to have civil servants looking into Buckingham Palace
rather than the great unwashed ?

and led Queen Victoria (who could see it
from Buckingham Palace) to demand action to restrain building
heights.

Tough.



greg

--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:43:39 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:


If it's not fit for purpose, it's 'niceness' is irrelevant. LT is there to
provide public transport, nothing else, it's assets are not there for the
benefit of train spotters, architecture wonks or unaccountable quangos who
don't have to pick up the tab for specious contradictory regulation.
So LU shouldn't do anything to reflect its heritage, its history and its
design excellence?
A straw man.

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?
There is absolutely no reason why you or any other public sector employee
should be provided with facilities which have higher operating costs than
equivalent ones elsewhere.

Does your logic also apply to the private sector? If this is the case
then I trust we will see bankers and corporate lawyers sharing the same
facilities as privatised dustmen.
(snip)

Paul, your argument has already failed here because you're asking for logic.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:00:06 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:43:39 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:


If it's not fit for purpose, it's 'niceness' is irrelevant. LT is there to
provide public transport, nothing else, it's assets are not there for the
benefit of train spotters, architecture wonks or unaccountable quangos who
don't have to pick up the tab for specious contradictory regulation.
So LU shouldn't do anything to reflect its heritage, its history and its
design excellence?
A straw man.

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?
There is absolutely no reason why you or any other public sector employee
should be provided with facilities which have higher operating costs than
equivalent ones elsewhere.

Does your logic also apply to the private sector? If this is the case
then I trust we will see bankers and corporate lawyers sharing the same
facilities as privatised dustmen.
(snip)

Paul, your argument has already failed here because you're asking for logic.

Obviously - I don't think I have come across anyone post such utter
patronising clap trap on the group.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

Greg, can I just ask, purely as an aside, if you've had a bad personal
experience in the sphere of "planning" (in its broadest sense)?

In message , Greg Hennessy
writes
Not a wholly unaccountable state funded and centrally run quango.
I can't thin of any QuANGOs which are wholly unaccountable (ie most have
to work within powers or areas delegated to them by Parliament).

Ridiculous nanny state interference by the HSE aside, that's only a subset
of the issue. Any major infrastructure project in the UK takes the guts of
a decade to work through a ridiculously complex self inflicted planning
process.
I agree that some things do take far too long. But I don't think that
removing rules in their entirety (or almost in their entirety) would
somehow make our country a "better place". It would, for example, be
much more convenient for many people if the M1 were to continue
southwards from Staples Corner to - say - Marble Arch. The reason we
don't do that is because the advantages of such a thing would be
outweighed by the disadvantages. The same thinking (slowed down by our
planning process, for all its faults) saw the ultimate end of the Inner
Motorway Box, the M11 southwards extension and (I think) something
similar for the M23.

I appreciate that these are extreme examples and I'm not trying to
deliberately pick a fight or bait you, merely to try to illustrate why I
think our planning laws work as they do.

Projects such as the Great Central would be strangled at birth in today's
planning regime.
Well that applies to *many* things. I suspect that the London Eye
would never have been permitted if they'd asked for it to be placed
there permanently; instead it was allowed for five years and became
loved on the way.......

Perhaps you'd prefer a French-style system?

Not entirely.

I am in favour of mandatory levels of CPO compensation set at say 1.5-2
times the market value.

I am in favour of putting the compensation regime on a sliding scale with a
tight timescale, so that if someone wants to be bloody minded, feet
dragging comes with a price attached.

I am in favour of setting a tipping point, such that those who refuse to
take the generous compensation on offer will end up facing 'compensation'
at market clearing rates once say 2/3rds of properties have signed up.

I am in favour of simplifying the process such that it doesn't entertain
the notion of taking 'evidence' from druids or anyone else unconnected with
reality.

I am in favour of terminating with extreme prejudice the careers of
qunagocrats who sabotage planning decisions ex post facto. English Nature
comes to mind in this instance.
You know, Greg, these are all ideas or prospective rules being put
forward by an unelected and unaccountable source....... :-)

these happen to be the rules that would suit your way of looking at the
country but of course different people (bodies, authorities, etc.) all
have their own points of view. That's why planning involves so many
different people in consultation processes. What's good for one isn't
necessarily good for another.

and if you are in the way of the national interest and the
glory of the state, then tough luck? Kent is a rather different
environment to Pas de Calais.

Kent is mostly empty space.
Boggle
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

In message , Steve
Dulieu writes

Trust me I'm a DMT, would I lie to you?

*snort*
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:06:20 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:

Greg, can I just ask,

Of course you can mate.

purely as an aside, if you've had a bad personal
experience in the sphere of "planning" (in its broadest sense)?

When it's easier quicker and cheaper to build bigger better designed
houses in Holland and Belgium, then there is something exceedingly wrong
with the UK system.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../01/do0102.xml

"The average size of a new dwelling in Britain is 82.7 square metres. That
compares with 115.5 square metres in the Netherlands, whose population
density is much greater than our own.

Our house prices over the past 30 years have risen by 3.9 per cent per year
above the rate of inflation: in Switzerland and Germany, they have remained
static. Another way of putting this is that people have to pay more for
less.

The chief reason for this is that it is very hard to build new houses.
Planning law gives enormous power to the public authorities. They combine
the horror (John Prescott) of imposing centrally determined, much-too-large
blocks of development in a few places with much too strict micro-control of
building everywhere, particularly anywhere that can be described as
"green". "


In message , Greg Hennessy
writes
Not a wholly unaccountable state funded and centrally run quango.
I can't thin of any QuANGOs which are wholly unaccountable (ie most have
to work within powers or areas delegated to them by Parliament).

That's the point, once the powers have been delegated usually directly by
ministries through secondary legislation, parliament never gets a look in.

Parliament does not have the power to amend any of the 3000 odd SI's passed
each year, all it can do it reject or pass them. Needless to say any notion
of proper parliamentary scrutiny is academic.

Govt's change, civil service empires do not.


Ridiculous nanny state interference by the HSE aside, that's only a subset
of the issue. Any major infrastructure project in the UK takes the guts of
a decade to work through a ridiculously complex self inflicted planning
process.
I agree that some things do take far too long. But I don't think that
removing rules in their entirety (or almost in their entirety) would
somehow make our country a "better place".

The answer to over regulation is never more regulation.

It would, for example, be
much more convenient for many people if the M1 were to continue
southwards from Staples Corner to - say - Marble Arch.

By removing the power to do that from Whitehall to Localities, the
likelihood of that part of the Abercrombie box being resurrected is rather
low.

The reason we don't do that is because the advantages of such a thing would be
outweighed by the disadvantages. The same thinking (slowed down by our
planning process, for all its faults) saw the ultimate end of the Inner
Motorway Box, the M11 southwards extension and (I think) something
similar for the M23.

It also caused horrendous congestion in the SE by delaying the completion
of the M25 by 15 odd years.


I appreciate that these are extreme examples and I'm not trying to
deliberately pick a fight or bait you,

If you were, we wouldn't be having this conversation :-).


merely to try to illustrate why I
think our planning laws work as they do.

Projects such as the Great Central would be strangled at birth in today's
planning regime.
Well that applies to *many* things. I suspect that the London Eye
would never have been permitted if they'd asked for it to be placed
there permanently; instead it was allowed for five years and became
loved on the way.......

Which is why the current system should be excised in a root and branch
reform.

You have to remember the origins of the existing planning mess. It's only
by the grace of INSERT DEITY HERE that the 1945-51 socialist govt didn't
completely nationalise land. It was seriously considered.

What did end up being enacted in 1947 was to appease the statist control
freaks in the party.

The permanent installation of a ferris wheel on the South Bank, should have
stood on it's own merits, if it's detractors didn't want it to built, they
should have been able to consult Londoners directly through a proposition
system.

I am a firm believer in the wisdom of crowds, give the electorate enough
information and they will generally make the right decision.

That scares the men at the ministry silly.


Perhaps you'd prefer a French-style system?

Not entirely.

I am in favour of mandatory levels of CPO compensation set at say 1.5-2
times the market value.

I am in favour of putting the compensation regime on a sliding scale with a
tight timescale, so that if someone wants to be bloody minded, feet
dragging comes with a price attached.

I am in favour of setting a tipping point, such that those who refuse to
take the generous compensation on offer will end up facing 'compensation'
at market clearing rates once say 2/3rds of properties have signed up.

I am in favour of simplifying the process such that it doesn't entertain
the notion of taking 'evidence' from druids or anyone else unconnected with
reality.

I am in favour of terminating with extreme prejudice the careers of
qunagocrats who sabotage planning decisions ex post facto. English Nature
comes to mind in this instance.
You know, Greg, these are all ideas or prospective rules being put
forward by an unelected and unaccountable source....... :-)

Not really, repealing the post war planning mess can only come from
parliament. Returning those powers back to where they belong and allowing
the people to have the ultimate say through a proposition system is
inherently accountable and democratic.

these happen to be the rules that would suit your way of looking at the
country but of course different people (bodies, authorities, etc.) all
have their own points of view. That's why planning involves so many
different people in consultation processes. What's good for one isn't
necessarily good for another.

Which is why radical simplification is necessary. With limited terms of
reference and stringent binding time lines to prevent ****ing contests
between competing quangos.

As per the example above, quangos such as English Nature should never have
had the power to veto all development within 5km of it's fiefdom.

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle361324.ece

"it is certainly the case that the 5km zone is producing some bizarre
effects. David Ullathorne, who runs Rectory Homes, based in Haddenham,
Buckinghamshire, has been caught in the planning freeze over two
developments in Sunningdale and Ascot, in Berkshire. He said: "I have one
site, developing 12 apartments in Ascot High Street, which is 4.6km from
the SPA, as the Dartford warbler flies, and that has been stopped, yet it
is surrounded by alternative open space. It is only a couple of minutes
from Ascot racecourse, which is open to the public.""

The National Trust should never have had the power to subvert the planning
process for long overdue improvements to A303 after the fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...8/nwaste18.xml


and if you are in the way of the national interest and the
glory of the state, then tough luck? Kent is a rather different
environment to Pas de Calais.

Kent is mostly empty space.
Boggle

There are parts of Kent poorer and less accessible from London via public
transport than the allegedly disadvantaged 'oop north'.

The notion that it's some untouched idyll is long past it's sell by date.



greg
--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:46:10 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:00:06 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:43:39 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:


If it's not fit for purpose, it's 'niceness' is irrelevant. LT is there to
provide public transport, nothing else, it's assets are not there for the
benefit of train spotters, architecture wonks or unaccountable quangos who
don't have to pick up the tab for specious contradictory regulation.
So LU shouldn't do anything to reflect its heritage, its history and its
design excellence?
A straw man.

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?
There is absolutely no reason why you or any other public sector employee
should be provided with facilities which have higher operating costs than
equivalent ones elsewhere.

Does your logic also apply to the private sector? If this is the case
then I trust we will see bankers and corporate lawyers sharing the same
facilities as privatised dustmen.
(snip)

Paul, your argument has already failed here because you're asking for logic.

Obviously - I don't think I have come across anyone post such utter
patronising clap trap on the group.

Pointing out logical fallacy after logical fallacy posted in lieu of
addressing the point is now 'patronising clap trap'. ROTFL!

Neither of you have proved capable of explaining why LT or any other
publicly funded organisation should be somehow immune from minimising their
overheads and maximising the return on what are in the case of St James
exceedingly valuable assets.



Strawmen about dustmen and ambulance chasers not withstanding.



greg
--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:06:20 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:
(snip)
Ridiculous nanny state interference by the HSE aside, that's only a subset
of the issue. Any major infrastructure project in the UK takes the guts of
a decade to work through a ridiculously complex self inflicted planning
process.
I agree that some things do take far too long. But I don't think that
removing rules in their entirety (or almost in their entirety) would
somehow make our country a "better place".

The answer to over regulation is never more regulation.

It would, for example, be
much more convenient for many people if the M1 were to continue
southwards from Staples Corner to - say - Marble Arch.

By removing the power to do that from Whitehall to Localities, the
likelihood of that part of the Abercrombie box being resurrected is rather
low.

The reason we don't do that is because the advantages of such a thing would be
outweighed by the disadvantages. The same thinking (slowed down by our
planning process, for all its faults) saw the ultimate end of the Inner
Motorway Box, the M11 southwards extension and (I think) something
similar for the M23.

It also caused horrendous congestion in the SE by delaying the completion
of the M25 by 15 odd years.

Rubbish. The same logic would say that not building the Motorway Box or
any other road scheme has "caused" congestion. Congestion has arisen
because too many people want to use too little roadspace, which is
because the cost of travel is suboptimal. Building new roads merely
lowers the cost of travel and encourages people to travel more, and the
result in a dense region like the south east is a congested equilibrium
- just as before.

So whilst the south east may have had "horrendous congestion" before the
M25, it still has "horrendous congestion" after the M25, and may well
always have horrendous congestion unless someone optimises the cost of
travel - i.e. introduces road pricing.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:23:36 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

Neither of you have proved capable of explaining why LT or any other
publicly funded organisation should be somehow immune from minimising their
overheads and maximising the return on what are in the case of St James
exceedingly valuable assets.

It's very simple - I just completely disagree with your premise that the
public sector has to do the minimising and maximising that you believe
it has to do.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:33:07 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:


The same logic would say that not building the Motorway Box or
any other road scheme has "caused" congestion. Congestion has arisen
because too many people want to use too little roadspace,

My, you are a bright one.

which is because the cost of travel is suboptimal.

ROTFL! Oh really. How about, there is 'too little roadspace' (sic).

Building new roads merely lowers the cost of travel

As does adding capacity to any service, your point ?

and encourages people to travel more,

Gawd, we wouldn't want that now would we.

They might want cheap flights too.

and the result in a dense region like the south east is a congested equilibrium
- just as before.

I just lurve how the 'logical' trot out this fallacious article of eco
dogma.

The demand for road space is clearly not infinite.



greg



--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:01:19 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:23:36 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

Neither of you have proved capable of explaining why LT or any other
publicly funded organisation should be somehow immune from minimising their
overheads and maximising the return on what are in the case of St James
exceedingly valuable assets.

It's very simple - I just completely disagree with your premise that the
public sector has to do the minimising and maximising that you believe
it has to do.


Of course you would.

Being a public sector employee you dont have to pay for it.




greg



--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:33:07 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:


The same logic would say that not building the Motorway Box or
any other road scheme has "caused" congestion. Congestion has arisen
because too many people want to use too little roadspace,

My, you are a bright one.

which is because the cost of travel is suboptimal.

ROTFL! Oh really. How about, there is 'too little roadspace' (sic).

Ooh, argument through sarcasm, you must be right.

If travellers paid for the cost of congestion they impose upon other
users, then there wouldn't be "too little roadspace", it would be
optimal for the volume of traffic using it. Go and look it up.

Building new roads merely lowers the cost of travel

As does adding capacity to any service, your point ?

I'm sorry, I thought it was quite obvious, but I need to spell it out;
new capacity does not automatically relieve congestion.

and encourages people to travel more,

Gawd, we wouldn't want that now would we.

Well, you're obviously in favour of having people bear the costs of the
things they want; apply your own principles to demand for travel.

They might want cheap flights too.

Yep, apply your principles there too.

and the result in a dense region like the south east is a congested equilibrium
- just as before.

I just lurve how the 'logical' trot out this fallacious article of eco
dogma.

Who said anything about eco dogma? This is simple economics. Try looking
it up on something like Google Scholar; the few thousand articles it
returns on road pricing, written by people who know more about this than
you, might help.

The demand for road space is clearly not infinite.

No, but there's an awful lot of suppressed demand. Really, go and look
it up.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:34:37 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:33:07 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:


The same logic would say that not building the Motorway Box or
any other road scheme has "caused" congestion. Congestion has arisen
because too many people want to use too little roadspace,

My, you are a bright one.

which is because the cost of travel is suboptimal.

ROTFL! Oh really. How about, there is 'too little roadspace' (sic).

Ooh, argument through sarcasm, you must be right.

Of course.

If travellers paid for the cost of congestion they impose upon other
users, then there wouldn't be "too little roadspace",

That statement is so economically illiterate it doesn't require further
comment.

When compared to our immediate neighbours and competitors, the UK clearly
does have 'too little roadspace' (sic).

Something which implies a lack of supply.

Building new roads merely lowers the cost of travel

As does adding capacity to any service, your point ?

I'm sorry, I thought it was quite obvious, but I need to spell it out;
new capacity does not automatically relieve congestion.

ROTFL! It does if enough capacity is added.


I just lurve how the 'logical' trot out this fallacious article of eco
dogma.

Who said anything about eco dogma? This is simple economics.

Something which you clearly have no appreciation of.

[snip more uninformed....]


The demand for road space is clearly not infinite.

No, but there's an awful lot of suppressed demand. Really, go and look
it up.

Most amusing coming from someone who is unaware of the opportunity costs
caused by suppressed demand.

Imagine the consequences if the same dogma was applied to other transport
infrastructure such as power, gas or telephony.



greg


--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?

Well, you're all moving into the Shard of Glass when it's built,
apparently.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
 

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:32:52 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?

Well, you're all moving into the Shard of Glass when it's built,
apparently.

I suspect that that building would not be cheap enough. I think we need
to be transferred to wherever they take the portacabins that were used
on the construction of the Shard. That might be low cost enough to
satisfy our resident critic of all public sector organisations.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Gt Portland St tiles
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:32:52 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?
Well, you're all moving into the Shard of Glass when it's built,
apparently.

I suspect that that building would not be cheap enough. I think we need
to be transferred to wherever they take the portacabins that were used
on the construction of the Shard. That might be low cost enough to
satisfy our resident critic of all public sector organisations.

Mmm. Maybe all London's public sector organisations should be relocated
to the Welsh valleys...

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London