Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 16:04:54 UTC+1, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.

ditto buildings. Council estates are fully govt planned, historic town centres aren't.


NT

harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Locally, a new health centre is being built. The planning rules
recommend 176 car parking spaces. Permission was given for 131 spaces.
The planning consent should have reduced the amount of building space to
compensate for the car parking shortage, but that didn't happen. However
60 secure bicycle spaces are provided! I have only seen about 1 pedal
powered organ donor a year using the health centre! The building is too
large for the planned occupation, so the spare space is being rented out
for some other purposes. The plans also limit the working hours in the
building, so there is no hope of a 24 hour x 7 day health service. This
is being built on green belt land and the residents of a local housing
estate, will lose their open green views. The old health centre is being
sold for housing in a area which is already overbuilt. I just know
politicians are brain dead when it comes to planning sensibly.

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 16:04:54 UTC+1, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are
unplannned? Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.

ditto buildings. Council estates are fully govt planned, historic town
centres aren't.


You think somewhere like Trafalgar Square just happened?

--
*My wife has a slight impediment in her speech. She stops to breathe.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 09/08/2017 16:07, wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 16:04:54 UTC+1, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.

ditto buildings. Council estates are fully govt planned, historic town centres aren't.


NT


Which historic town centre wasn't planned?

"harry" wrote in message
...

Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.

Most brown tourist attraction signs point to places and buildings built
without planning permission !

(Unless they point to former top secret underground military bunkers, that
when I visited for work back in the '70's and '80's I had to have armed
escorts even when going to the loo! )


Andrew

On 09-Aug-17 4:04 PM, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Most ancient towns and villages were planned, although the original plan
has often been obscured by later changes. Building regulations have been
around since about 1189.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 17:01:39 +0100, Capitol wrote:

harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are
unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Locally, a new health centre is being built. The planning rules
recommend 176 car parking spaces. Permission was given for 131 spaces.
The planning consent should have reduced the amount of building space to
compensate for the car parking shortage, but that didn't happen. However
60 secure bicycle spaces are provided! I have only seen about 1 pedal
powered organ donor a year using the health centre! The building is too
large for the planned occupation, so the spare space is being rented out
for some other purposes. The plans also limit the working hours in the
building, so there is no hope of a 24 hour x 7 day health service. This
is being built on green belt land and the residents of a local housing
estate, will lose their open green views. The old health centre is being
sold for housing in a area which is already overbuilt. I just know
politicians are brain dead when it comes to planning sensibly.

Not brain dead, just making sure where their next bung is coming from.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:19:12 +0100, Andrew Mawson wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...

Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are
unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.

Most brown tourist attraction signs point to places and buildings built
without planning permission !

(Unless they point to former top secret underground military bunkers,
that when I visited for work back in the '70's and '80's I had to have
armed escorts even when going to the loo! )

Never had that, but for a few days I had to take a Geiger counter to the
loo!

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 18:32:23 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 4:04 PM, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Most ancient towns and villages were planned, although the original plan
has often been obscured by later changes. Building regulations have been
around since about 1189.

They go back far further than that. But ones so pervasive as to specify nearly everything are a modern phenomenon.


NT

On 09/08/17 17:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 16:04:54 UTC+1, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are
unplannned? Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.

ditto buildings. Council estates are fully govt planned, historic town
centres aren't.


You think somewhere like Trafalgar Square just happened?

yes, but not by socialists

Bob Eager Wrote in message:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:19:12 +0100, Andrew Mawson wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...

Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are
unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.

Most brown tourist attraction signs point to places and buildings built
without planning permission !

(Unless they point to former top secret underground military bunkers,
that when I visited for work back in the '70's and '80's I had to have
armed escorts even when going to the loo! )

Never had that, but for a few days I had to take a Geiger counter to the
loo!


Saniflo?
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 17:01:45 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Locally, a new health centre is being built. The planning rules
recommend 176 car parking spaces. Permission was given for 131 spaces.
The planning consent should have reduced the amount of building space to
compensate for the car parking shortage, but that didn't happen. However
60 secure bicycle spaces are provided! I have only seen about 1 pedal
powered organ donor a year using the health centre! The building is too
large for the planned occupation, so the spare space is being rented out
for some other purposes. The plans also limit the working hours in the
building, so there is no hope of a 24 hour x 7 day health service. This
is being built on green belt land and the residents of a local housing
estate, will lose their open green views. The old health centre is being
sold for housing in a area which is already overbuilt. I just know
politicians are brain dead when it comes to planning sensibly.


They're not brain dead when there's a back-hander going.

harry wrote

Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.

Because planners showed up after they had been built.

wrote
harry wrote

Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are
unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.

ditto buildings. Council estates are fully govt planned, historic town
centres aren't.

Attitudes were different in the past. Even very basic stuff like water
towers and sewage plants had very decent buildings in the past.

Nowdays they dont **** so much money
against the wall on making it look better.

Let alone spending lots of money on
fancy town center railway stations etc.

Even you should have noticed that say Heathrow
is a tad more utilitarian to look at than the main
railway station in London.

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 21:05:30 +0100, jim wrote:

Bob Eager Wrote in message:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:19:12 +0100, Andrew Mawson wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...

Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are
unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.

Most brown tourist attraction signs point to places and buildings
built without planning permission !

(Unless they point to former top secret underground military bunkers,
that when I visited for work back in the '70's and '80's I had to have
armed escorts even when going to the loo! )

Never had that, but for a few days I had to take a Geiger counter to
the loo!


Saniflo?

No, I had a radioactive implant.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article ,
Tjoepstil wrote:
On 09/08/17 17:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 16:04:54 UTC+1, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are
unplannned? Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.

ditto buildings. Council estates are fully govt planned, historic town
centres aren't.


You think somewhere like Trafalgar Square just happened?

yes, but not by socialists

Wonder who this new sockpuppet actually is? I know most of my stalkers.

--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

That depends on your lack of planning. If you allow anyone to build anything
anywhere some places will get high rises in inappropriate places. I suggest
what you really mean is soft touch planning. also nowadays central
Government has a bigger role as councils have to prioritise places to life
which can be affordable. Round here near a quaint old church thy want to put
up housing made from something called Y cubes which sound like glorified
prefabs to me.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.

On 09-Aug-17 6:42 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 18:32:23 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 4:04 PM, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Most ancient towns and villages were planned, although the original plan
has often been obscured by later changes. Building regulations have been
around since about 1189.

They go back far further than that.

I can't find anything before the rules controlling building nuisances in
London, usually dated to 1189, but certainly in force by 1216. If you
have something earlier, I would be interested.

But ones so pervasive as to specify nearly everything are a modern phenomenon.

Collecting all the regulations under a single umbrella is, but the
mid-Victorian era saw a huge expansion in controls under many different
Acts.


--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
But ones so pervasive as to specify nearly everything are a modern
phenomenon.

Collecting all the regulations under a single umbrella is, but the
mid-Victorian era saw a huge expansion in controls under many different
Acts.

An old town high street can be very attractive. But not all.

Larger areas - like say Trafalgar Square - were planned. Not necessarily
by a council, of course.

But then good present day planning can make use of existing features like
trees and older building too.

--
*I dropped out of communism class because of lousy Marx.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, 10 August 2017 09:22:43 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 6:42 PM, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 18:32:23 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 4:04 PM, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Most ancient towns and villages were planned, although the original plan
has often been obscured by later changes. Building regulations have been
around since about 1189.

They go back far further than that.

I can't find anything before the rules controlling building nuisances in
London, usually dated to 1189, but certainly in force by 1216. If you
have something earlier, I would be interested.

But ones so pervasive as to specify nearly everything are a modern phenomenon.

Collecting all the regulations under a single umbrella is, but the
mid-Victorian era saw a huge expansion in controls under many different
Acts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code
I've read of earlier regs but not finding a ref at the moment.


NT

On Thursday, 10 August 2017 11:17:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:

But ones so pervasive as to specify nearly everything are a modern
phenomenon.

Collecting all the regulations under a single umbrella is, but the
mid-Victorian era saw a huge expansion in controls under many different
Acts.

An old town high street can be very attractive. But not all.

Larger areas - like say Trafalgar Square - were planned. Not necessarily
by a council, of course.

But then good present day planning can make use of existing features like
trees and older building too.

Today's govt BRs are only concerned with avoiding the worst quality housing, which of course used to be built, and much of which is now demolished or has been rectified. They do this by specifying so much detail that it makes it largely impractical to do all sorts of extras that used to be common, and now are painful to add if not impossible. The result is a lot of very humdrum housing & very little nice new housing.

The other aspect is cost. BRs exist to avoid the cost of problems, but by existing they multiply the cost of the housing severalfold, so the snake bites its own tail. Too much fear becomes counterproductive.

Some BRs are vital, some are a mixed bag and some are just rules for no good point at all. Eg use of 11" joists instead of 6", limiting ceiling deflection to 3mm, requiring 50mm waste where 40mm copes fine, etc.

Then there are the style rules. New builds in this area must all be built with a certain type of brick. The result? A swathe of yawnful houses with brickwork creativity rendered illegal. Completely senseless, and a direct cause of the crap looking new build estates.

The prime problem is that there is no mechanism for tackling rule-cruft in this country.


NT

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 10 August 2017 11:17:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:

But ones so pervasive as to specify nearly everything are a modern
phenomenon.

Collecting all the regulations under a single umbrella is, but the
mid-Victorian era saw a huge expansion in controls under many different
Acts.

An old town high street can be very attractive. But not all.

Larger areas - like say Trafalgar Square - were planned. Not necessarily
by a council, of course.

But then good present day planning can make use of existing features like
trees and older building too.

Today's govt BRs are only concerned with avoiding the worst quality
housing,

Thats overstated with the regulations on the level of insulation required
alone.

which of course used to be built, and much of which is now demolished or
has been rectified. They do this by specifying so much detail that it
makes
it largely impractical to do all sorts of extras that used to be common,

And so is that.

and now are painful to add if not impossible.

Bull****.

The result is a lot of very humdrum housing & very little nice new
housing.

Depends on what you call nice new housing. What Kevin managed
with his own new housing development is quite decent.

The other aspect is cost. BRs exist to avoid the cost of problems,
but by existing they multiply the cost of the housing severalfold,

Thats bull**** too except with insulation and
even that doesnt multiply the cost several fold.

so the snake bites its own tail. Too much fear becomes counterproductive.

Its not fear so much as being too prescriptive.

Some BRs are vital, some are a mixed bag and some are just
rules for no good point at all. Eg use of 11" joists instead of 6",

Thats not a universal requirement.

limiting ceiling deflection to 3mm,

Maybe.

requiring 50mm waste where 40mm copes fine, etc.

I dont believe that 40 mm is adequate for horizontal waste under the
ground.

Then there are the style rules. New builds in this
area must all be built with a certain type of brick.

Yeah, no argument there, thats mad.

The result? A swathe of yawnful houses with brickwork
creativity rendered illegal. Completely senseless, and
a direct cause of the crap looking new build estates.

The prime problem is that there is no mechanism
for tackling rule-cruft in this country.

On 09/08/2017 17:01, Capitol wrote:
harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are
unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Locally, a new health centre is being built. The planning rules
recommend 176 car parking spaces. Permission was given for 131 spaces.
The planning consent should have reduced the amount of building space to
compensate for the car parking shortage, but that didn't happen. However
60 secure bicycle spaces are provided! I have only seen about 1 pedal
powered organ donor a year using the health centre! The building is too
large for the planned occupation, so the spare space is being rented out
for some other purposes. The plans also limit the working hours in the
building, so there is no hope of a 24 hour x 7 day health service. This
is being built on green belt land and the residents of a local housing
estate, will lose their open green views. The old health centre is being
sold for housing in a area which is already overbuilt. I just know
politicians are brain dead when it comes to planning sensibly.

Chichester telephone exchange was massively extended in the 70's but
now most of it is empty space.

On 09/08/2017 16:04, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Not forgetting large parts of York and other places that are under water
after moderate rain.

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 09/08/2017 17:01, Capitol wrote:
harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are
unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Locally, a new health centre is being built. The planning rules
recommend 176 car parking spaces. Permission was given for 131 spaces.
The planning consent should have reduced the amount of building space to
compensate for the car parking shortage, but that didn't happen. However
60 secure bicycle spaces are provided! I have only seen about 1 pedal
powered organ donor a year using the health centre! The building is too
large for the planned occupation, so the spare space is being rented out
for some other purposes. The plans also limit the working hours in the
building, so there is no hope of a 24 hour x 7 day health service. This
is being built on green belt land and the residents of a local housing
estate, will lose their open green views. The old health centre is being
sold for housing in a area which is already overbuilt. I just know
politicians are brain dead when it comes to planning sensibly.

Chichester telephone exchange was massively extended in the 70's but
now most of it is empty space.

Then turn it into one of these.
http://minimalismissimple.com/wp-con...le-hotel-1.jpg

On 10-Aug-17 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, 10 August 2017 09:22:43 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 6:42 PM, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 18:32:23 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 4:04 PM, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Most ancient towns and villages were planned, although the original plan
has often been obscured by later changes. Building regulations have been
around since about 1189.

They go back far further than that.

I can't find anything before the rules controlling building nuisances in
London, usually dated to 1189, but certainly in force by 1216. If you
have something earlier, I would be interested.

But ones so pervasive as to specify nearly everything are a modern phenomenon.

Collecting all the regulations under a single umbrella is, but the
mid-Victorian era saw a huge expansion in controls under many different
Acts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code
I've read of earlier regs but not finding a ref at the moment.

I wasn't think of outside the English legal system, although, on
reflection, I would expect that the Romans had building regulations.


--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10-Aug-17 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, 10 August 2017 09:22:43 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 6:42 PM, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 18:32:23 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 4:04 PM, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are
unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Most ancient towns and villages were planned, although the original
plan
has often been obscured by later changes. Building regulations have
been
around since about 1189.

They go back far further than that.

I can't find anything before the rules controlling building nuisances in
London, usually dated to 1189, but certainly in force by 1216. If you
have something earlier, I would be interested.

But ones so pervasive as to specify nearly everything are a modern
phenomenon.

Collecting all the regulations under a single umbrella is, but the
mid-Victorian era saw a huge expansion in controls under many different
Acts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code
I've read of earlier regs but not finding a ref at the moment.

I wasn't think of outside the English legal system, although, on
reflection, I would expect that the Romans had building regulations.

I doubt it on the detail of how you did your own house.

On the general stuff like streets and stuff, sure.

On 10-Aug-17 9:56 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10-Aug-17 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, 10 August 2017 09:22:43 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 6:42 PM, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 18:32:23 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 4:04 PM, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are
unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Most ancient towns and villages were planned, although the
original plan
has often been obscured by later changes. Building regulations
have been
around since about 1189.

They go back far further than that.

I can't find anything before the rules controlling building
nuisances in
London, usually dated to 1189, but certainly in force by 1216. If you
have something earlier, I would be interested.

But ones so pervasive as to specify nearly everything are a modern
phenomenon.

Collecting all the regulations under a single umbrella is, but the
mid-Victorian era saw a huge expansion in controls under many different
Acts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code
I've read of earlier regs but not finding a ref at the moment.

I wasn't think of outside the English legal system, although, on
reflection, I would expect that the Romans had building regulations.

I doubt it on the detail of how you did your own house.

On the general stuff like streets and stuff, sure.

It is widely thought that Nero set fire to Rome so that it could be
rebuilt to his master plan, which included quite detailed requirements
for things like fire resistance and sanitation. I don't know whether the
same regulations applied in the provinces though.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 10/08/2017 17:06, Andrew wrote:

Chichester telephone exchange was massively extended in the 70's but
now most of it is empty space.

The one in west bromwich is now office space and a hotel with the
SystemX exchange sitting on one floor in a corner.

Sometime soon(?) it will go out into the street cabinets and there will
be no exchange there.

BT will have lots of redundant buildings as exchanges are replaced.

The first SystemX processor I worked on took two shelves of about 20
cards each to make a CPU. The memory was on different shelves!

Then it went to four cards to make a CPU so we had four of them on a shelf.

Then it went to one.

The last time I worked on one they were virtual and several ran on one
micro. That was ten years ago so I have no idea what they are like
physically now.


The four card processor used to be about one third of the electronics in
the processing suit and that fitted in one rack There were one to four
racks depending on size. We had loosely coupled clusters of processors
in the early '90s, its not something new. The groups of four in the
racks were on the same backplane while the links between the racks were
high speed (for then) serial buses.


That was connected to the switch which could be several racks. The
switch connected to concentrators.

In all a large(ish) exchange could be 10-15 racks in the building while
strowdger or cross point exchanges could be several floors full for the
same traffic.

dennis@home wrote
Andrew wrote

Chichester telephone exchange was massively extended
in the 70's but now most of it is empty space.

The one in west bromwich is now office space and a hotel
with the SystemX exchange sitting on one floor in a corner.

I was sitting in my car, in the railway station car part waiting
for the train with someone I know on it, to give him a lift home,
looking at our town exchange. Massive great multi story building
on one cornet of the main street with the post office in the bottom
of the main street side. The exchange occupys a full block wide
and is basically massive great concrete and brick building with
bugger all in the way of windows.

While its currently got the exchange in it still, we have at the
start of the year had all the street cabinets for the VDSL2
service go ready for service and the exchange will be scrapped
in about 12 months and while the fiber optic cables to the
street cabinets will still be terminated there after that,
that will all fit in one of the rooms the cleaners kept the
floor polisher in etc.

Very expensive business to turn it into a hotel or office space
and we have just had a new hotel built on bare land at the
side of the railway yards completely just at the end of last year.
https://goo.gl/maps/oZcWSdb8eWt

Sometime soon(?) it will go out into the street
cabinets and there will be no exchange there.

BT will have lots of redundant buildings as exchanges are replaced.

Yeah, ours too.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10-Aug-17 9:56 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10-Aug-17 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, 10 August 2017 09:22:43 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 6:42 PM, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 18:32:23 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 4:04 PM, harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are
unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Most ancient towns and villages were planned, although the original
plan
has often been obscured by later changes. Building regulations have
been
around since about 1189.

They go back far further than that.

I can't find anything before the rules controlling building nuisances
in
London, usually dated to 1189, but certainly in force by 1216. If you
have something earlier, I would be interested.

But ones so pervasive as to specify nearly everything are a modern
phenomenon.

Collecting all the regulations under a single umbrella is, but the
mid-Victorian era saw a huge expansion in controls under many
different
Acts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code
I've read of earlier regs but not finding a ref at the moment.

I wasn't think of outside the English legal system, although, on
reflection, I would expect that the Romans had building regulations.

I doubt it on the detail of how you did your own house.

On the general stuff like streets and stuff, sure.

It is widely thought that Nero set fire to Rome so that it could be
rebuilt to his master plan, which included quite detailed requirements for
things like fire resistance and sanitation.

But not stuff like the appearance of the buildings etc.

I don't know whether the same regulations applied in the provinces though.

Unlikely.

On 11-Aug-17 11:18 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
....
It is widely thought that Nero set fire to Rome so that it could be
rebuilt to his master plan, which included quite detailed requirements
for things like fire resistance and sanitation.

But not stuff like the appearance of the buildings etc....

Neither do UK building regulations. The appearance comes under planning.


--
--

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar wrote

It is widely thought that Nero set fire to Rome so that it could be
rebuilt to his master plan, which included quite detailed requirements
for things like fire resistance and sanitation.

But not stuff like the appearance of the buildings etc....

Neither do UK building regulations. The appearance comes under planning.

But the Romans didnt have planning.

On 09/08/2017 21:22, wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 17:01:45 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
harry wrote:
Have you noticed, the most attractive towns/parts of towns are unplannned?
Places like Shrewsbury, Oxford etc.


Locally, a new health centre is being built. The planning rules
recommend 176 car parking spaces. Permission was given for 131 spaces.
The planning consent should have reduced the amount of building space to
compensate for the car parking shortage, but that didn't happen. However
60 secure bicycle spaces are provided! I have only seen about 1 pedal
powered organ donor a year using the health centre! The building is too
large for the planned occupation, so the spare space is being rented out
for some other purposes. The plans also limit the working hours in the
building, so there is no hope of a 24 hour x 7 day health service. This
is being built on green belt land and the residents of a local housing
estate, will lose their open green views. The old health centre is being
sold for housing in a area which is already overbuilt. I just know
politicians are brain dead when it comes to planning sensibly.


They're not brain dead when there's a back-hander going.

you all have an opportunity to become representatives of the people.