Zoinks wrote:
[snip]
I find it irritating that Kev. constantly uses the programme as a
soapbox to rant about the planning regulations (something that he says
should be abolished).

"Greenbelt ? Nah, f*ck it, put a house up anyway."

The house built in the lake the other week was a perfect example. When
they'd finished the only place left in that area with a view of unsploit
countryside was the house they'd thrown up. How it got planning
permission is a complete mystery.

He has a valid point. The planning process made damn sure that the house
would look like a pile of crap, and it did. I've been through the same
with my own home and have just about given up. If I want to rip the guts
out of the house and build everything to current building regs I will
get permission. The end result will be a hideous series of boxes and a
construction unsympathetic to the architecture of the village and this
house in particular.


The village was built entirely without planning restrictions and as a
consequence it is human scaled, very attractive and brings in people
from miles around just to ogle at the massed prettiness.

Why shouldn't current development follow suit? Why are we forced (for
example) to fit doorways that are different in proportion to the
original for any new build. Why are we forbidden to develop the building
using the same techniques and materials used to build it originally? And
why do politicians, most of whom have council-house tastes, get to
dictate to others how they can live the minute detail of their lives?

IMO "planning" results in more eyesores than the development that was
occuring before "planning" was thought of.

Look at Prescott's attempts to lay waste to communities in order to
build cheap "system" houses.