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 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.

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 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!

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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