Chips wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
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.


Zoinks is on about the house in the lake here, what are you on about ?

The same house.

It was a right old mess, really ugly.

Yes, it was like that because the planners insisted that was what it had
to look like. The fact that the planners seemed to think 1940s council
house was the epitome of style had rather cramped the design.

It's true that he shouldn't soapbox his own views on TV though. If he
was ranting about liberalizing some other aspect of the law (drugs,
incest) every week you'd sure complain - well maybe not, I don't know.

Utter ********. If ****e planning restrictions are making the buildings
of Britain ugly then it needs to be mentioned.

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.


Then how would you feel if someone pulled down half of it and stuck up a
WalMart.

Surprised, I think as the owner I have the right to stop them.

Get rid of planning and that's *exactly* what will happen.

Utter **** again, the planners permit the monstrosities to be built nad
have condoned the siting of these in stupdi places (such as at motorway
junctions). Locally to me, the city planners have permitted a giant
hotel and a satellite dish farm to be built in an AONB (now a national
park). This decision was against the wishes of every single local
resident. The decision was IMO corrupt because the deal was that the
developers could do what they liked *if* they provided the land for the
council's pet project a pointless vanity building that is supposed to be
a "high tech learning centre" but which has ended up as an eyesore.

Most of the posts wrt bad neighbours on this NG would be much worse if
they could just do whatever the hell they wanted.

I doubt it.

Why shouldn't current development follow suit?

Because you'd have millions of idiots building fortresses all over the
place and enclosing as much possible volume at the lowest possible cost,
eating up every square inch of landmass. The lowest common denominator
would make your life hell. Imagine for one second that your moron
next-door neightbour wanted to build an extension that had a window
looking right into your bedroom, and on and on and on it goes...

I own enough land that it would not be a problem.

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?

The problem with the image of planning is that only people who mess up
on their applications (for whatever reason) rant on and on about it.

Errm no, you will find it is also people who have spent considerable
effort on creating a plan that is sympathetic to the character of the
building and been told that they can build what they like provided they
compeletely redesign the work to match the prejudices of the planner.

For example:

My uncle, submitted plans for a new barn, told to roof it in red tile
rather than the recycled stone flags he had intended to use "because red
tile is the vernacular". Every house in the village and his farm roofed
in stone. So he built it as he was told he would have to.

A few months later his neighbour also applied for a new barn, he was
told to roof it in stone, despite his house and all the other buildings
on site being roofed in slate. What is that if not capricious stupidity?

Or my case, applied for permission for a barn. Refused, on the basis
that the barn was too large. So I applied for permission for a garage,
same size and construction as the barn. I was visited by a planning
officer who said that they thought it was an excellent design. Spent
several hours talking about the terrible "gentrification" of the region
and said it was nice to see a sensible design for a building. Called me
back after 24 hours to say the garage would be approved if I put in a
clock tower. What is that if not gentrification? I got the building
approved on appeal, so now I have a barn^W garage.

Current plans I've given up on, because to implement what the planners
would let me build would ruin the house. They insist that the floor to
ceiling heights and doorways have to match modern standards, which would
means the new build dominating the existing structure.

No doubt when I sell or die someone will build the monstrosity that the
planners will permit, but I can't do that to the building.

The law is not set out by the planners, it's set by the Government.

Oh look, it's no one's fault that planning law is a mess. The planners
are only "following orders" and the Government are shiny clean saviours
of the people.

The decisions are not made by the planners, they're made by the
Councillors at the planning committee.

Who are advised by the planners and who tend in the main to slavishly
follow the advice given.

Planners are generally trying to help you get the application through -
the only power they have is to advise.


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?


Council house tastes ! What does that mean ! Sorry, can't hear you
through the window of your 4x4 (c:

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


Really ? Planning started just after the Second World War to help deal
with the development chaos that ensued. Without it you'd sure be a lot
worse off, under the control of every insane developer with an eye for a
profit (and that's all of them).

So why do they get to do as they like under the current system which is
biased towards favouring nasty build quality? You appear to have missed
the fact that the developers have bribed, coerced, corrupted, funded,
donated and loaned their way into getting the rule book written to
favour them.

And with startling nonsense like Part P, the rest of us are even
excluded from undertaking work that we are eminently qualified to do.


You are aware aren't you that modern houses perform less well than older
houses for energy efficiency? Isn't that a startling indictment of
planning law? All of the changes are forcing the development of poor
quality, inefficient housing.

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

And look at Tesco and ADSA's wish to build cheap "system" supermarkets.
Which would you prefer on your doorstep ?

The supermarket, it has a lower chav count.

All that said, there's just too many of us, that's the real problem. And
as the density increases we all just hope that no major sh*te gets built
next-door.


I agree, the density of a lot of you is increasing.

Admit it you work for the council don't you?