Garden grabbing!

[Nemesis]

Well the HWP is I agree ... it's a bit of a mess really, the evidence base for these changes is simply not there!

Who is clamouring for change and why? Developers so they can develop... not so the historic environment is better protected!!!

 

[Flyfisher]

I have no doubt there are some rogue developers, but I'm equally sure that they would prefer not to demolish a building (historic or not) before they build new properties - it only increases their costs after all.

But, they are in business to build property (and make money doing so) and, if you believe all the media hype, there is a shortage of housing in this country. So, developers are forced to find sites to develop wherever they can.

Because everyone goes bonkers everytime anyone tries to build on a green field, it is presumably easier for developers to knock down existing buildings - otherwise why would they do it? I can't believe 'nasty developers' actually have an agenda to destroy our historic buildings; the fact that it happens is indicative of other pressures withing the building industry and property markets.

 

[Nemesis]

They do it in some cases as it's far, far more lucrative to build a nice multistorey office block in the City of London (even though the site is currently occupied by a historic building) than to re-use the low-rise historic building.

They do it because where there is an existing building there is infrastructure.

They do it cos it is much easier to build where a building has already been (palnning issues).

They do it for many reasons.

At times green field can be the better option - depends on the green field.

 

[Nemesis]

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3089421&c=2&encCode=000000000133784f

 

[Flyfisher]

They do it for many reasons.

Of course they do. But those reasons are not of their own making, they have to work within the market constraints they face. It hardly makes them 'nasty developers'. If the various protective mechanisms for historic buildings are not strong enough then it would surely be better to strengthen them rather than just demonising developers - as if they actually care anyway.

I'm not trying to defend developers per se, just trying to make sense about the reality of what seems to happen in practice.

 

[Nemesis]

If the various protective mechanisms for historic buildings are not strong enough then it would surely be better to strengthen them rather than just demonising developers - as if they actually care anyway.

How good that would be!

But pigs, fly etc. I assume you responded to the Heritage White Paper, aka the Developer's Charter?

Nope - my experience ( I see Andrew agrees...) is that developers in the main are pretty nasty. Not Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny rolled into one. But as you say - they don't care anyway. Not as long as there is a profit to be made.

 

[Penners]

developers in the main are pretty nasty. Not Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny rolled into one.

Oh come on... I carry no brief for, or love of, developers. But as with any occupation/profession/trade/etc. there are good and bad. In between your pejorative black and white categorisations above, there are a thousand shades of grey.

 

[Nemesis]

Gosh - really? Do you think so? Well well.

Maybe I just in the main come across the black ones?

 

[Taff in Glaws]

Have to agree with you Nemesis the developer I refer to intended to build a 'multi' unit in a row of victorian terraces that are now in a conservation area, he has been economical with the truth when talking to neighbours. His original plans were not at all in keeping with the area and in our view was aimed at maximising profit.

We also have a major parking problem that has over the years culminated in front gardens disappear and replaced with hard standings. The developer made no attempt to create any extra parking space (not sure if there are limitations on this) despite being aware of the problem. Probably what clinched it for me was his total disregard for the immediate neighbours privacy or views and intention to create a walkway that passed their kitchen and bathroom area.

and he lives in a house, a very fine house in the country...... :wink:

 

[Flyfisher]

But, Taff, there are always two sides to any story. So the developer planned/implemented a 'non-ideal' development in order to maximise profits, but the plans were, presumably, approved by the relevant planning authorities - are they not equally culpable?

And front gardens have disappeared all over the country to accommodate ever-increasing car ownership - is this the developers fault? Presumably the occupants feel it is more important to have off-road parking than a front garden and, in a free country, that's their choice isn't it?

I'm not trying to pretend these things are ideal, but I don't think there is a single point of blame - if there was, it would surely be simple to resolve wouldn't it?

 

[Penners]

It was property developers who were widely responsible for the thousands of town and city terraces built in Georgian and Victorian times.

Some of them were quite nice...

 

[Nemesis]

They didn't demolish anything to build that one. And rarely is anything as nice buit nowadays.

However, the way Bath is going at the moment I'd get there before it's gone...

And:

but the plans were, presumably, approved by the relevant planning authorities - are they not equally culpable?


The relevant planning authority (often understaffed, hard pressed, with little time in which to come to decisions...) frequently has few planning grounds on which to refuse - and if it does the developertakes it all to appeal.

It costs a great deal for local authorities to fight an appeal, that's your money and mine... and some of the decisions at appeal are pretty bizarre.

The odds are stacked in favour of developers, who frequently don't play fair and are only interested in maximising profits.

However - as Taff said:

A large group of residents including myself have recently thwarted plans to build a multi occupancy unit on a undeveloped small strip of land around our victorian square. The developer claimed to have an altruistic motive for increasing the housing stock and enabling first time buyers to step on the property ladder. It's strange that he has bought no land in his own leafy Cotswold Village and tried to develop his ideas there.

The Planning dept. has agreed that he can build a 3-4 bedroom property on the land that must be in keeping with the adjacent victorian terraces though I hear through the grapevine they had to agree summit to avoid losing an appeal.

As this is now a conservation area, then the local authority can have more say - any development must 'conserve and enhance'. That of course is another thorny issue, but does give some control, especially when there are additional adopted policies.

 

[Penners]

They didn't demolish anything to build that one.

I think a few archeologists might disagree with you. However, I accept that any archeological damage was probably inadvertent.

 

[Flyfisher]

Time for some sanity:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6744797.stm

. . . . which would seem at odds with this report about government recommendations to double average housing densities to 30-50 homes per hectare.

'nasty developers' destroying the quality of our built environment or 'responsible developers' following government guildelines to increase housing density?

 

[Nemesis]

It really isn't so simple - but many developers are really unpleasant in their tactics and will try very hard to get round all manner of planning legislation and policies in order to get what they want, which is at the end of the day profits. Sadly they have big wads of cash and legal teams and consultants who are very happy to take the cash and say what the developer wants them to say...

Of course there are some who are sensitive to conservation issues, but the are few and far between.

Not all local authorities are in tune either - the City of London for example - amd Mr Livingstone's love of new shiny and high is going to be increasingly helping change - enhance or ruin, take your pick - the skyline of the capital.

And what London does others follow. well everywhere has to have it's 'iconic' building and new 'mixed use development' doesn't it? Clone town here we come.

Even places like Winchester and Bradford on Avon. No matter how ghastly and unsuitable the development, someone will be pressing to build it.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

As this is now a conservation area, then the local authority can have more say - any development must 'conserve and enhance'.

Preserve or enhance. There's a vital difference.

 

[Nemesis]

You are right of course. It is preserve or enhance.

But therein lie a whole can of worms.

And it really is only a strong presumption against any works which do not do either.

What it all boils down to is not very much meaningful protection, and one person's enhancement isn't always mine.

I dislike ye olde heritage style street furniture so beloved of my local authority, and Disneyesque streetscaping schemes which bear no relationship with the surroundings and tarmac would have looked better!

 

[Flyfisher]

It really isn't so simple

My point precisely.

 

[Nemesis]

Well today I'm working at trying to save something from a development which won't preserve, or enhance anything but the pockets of the (very nasty) developer.

So excuse me if I don't wax too lyrical about him. Or indeed about the planning process in general which has a general presumption in favour of development no matter how ugly or unsuitable.

 

[Taff in Glaws]

Can't say that the proposed development I highlighted had any aims to conserve or enhance aside from the financial enhancements Nemesis alludes to. I have no truck per se with developers and I suppose each case should be judged on it's own merits (if there are any!).

Your right Flyfisher there are two sides to each story and sometimes when a situation affects you and yours directly action maybe required where you take a stance as I suppose Nemesis is doing.

Good luck Nemesis.