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.

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

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.

surely
a rather important part of our history. And where would British cities
be without a 71 year old phone box design?

That's a decision for localities and their electorates to take. Not by
unaccountable whitehall dictat.


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.

If continentals can put new railways underground to spare property deemed
worthy, it's shouldn't be beyond the wit of the UK to do the same.

After all, Georgian buildings were then
fairly recent, and there were loads of 'em...

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

Post-war Britain then did the same thing to the Victorians,

Post war Whitehall did it to the Victorians, While the rest of Europe
attempted to rebuild shattered towns and cities to how they looked on the
31st of August 1939.

Central planning fetishists such as Patrick Abercrombie were let loose,
armed with powers to seize & destroy what the Luftwaffe couldn't.

and look what monstrosities that
could produce, perhaps doing more long-term harm to the fabric of some
cities than the Luftwaffe managed.

Did you expect anything better from wholly unaccountable civil servants in
Whitehall ?

The destruction of Plymouth and the creation of monstrosities such as
Stevenage, Harlow et al was entirely the fault of micromanaging state
control.


For some reason a lot of people think listing is about buildings being
twee and pretty - it isn't, it is about them being of architectural or
historic interest.

That's fine, they can make their case for listing directly to the local
electorate, who can then pick up the costs which listing brings.



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.

In message , Greg Hennessy
writes
Post war Whitehall did it to the Victorians, While the rest of Europe
attempted to rebuild shattered towns and cities to how they looked on
the 31st of August 1939.

Sorry Greg but that bit just isn't true. Many continental cities
suffered from a love of concrete and a naivety of design just as much as
Britain. More so, to be honest.

Cologne's stunning cathedral was (and to a large extent still is)
surrounded by wholly insensitive development out of scale, and keeping
and more importantly difficult to maintain well and keep looking good.

And don't let anyone tell you that cities like Dresden were in any sense
"fully restored". Only a minor (if amazingly beautiful) part of the
historic centre was rebuilt "as before". Take a stroll along the
nearby Prager Strasse and you could easily be in Stevenage or Harlow but
without the nice bits. Brussels has lots of the same and so do any
number of other continental cities.

For what it's worth, I reckon we've actually done a *better* job with
our urban fabric than many of our neighbours. (Though that's not to
say we don't have some monstrosities, too.)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.