Reasonably impressed, at least the series gives an idea of how to go about finding the owner of a 'ruin'. It also gives viewers an insight into what can be done to save a building.
But I do think that it makes the quest to find the owners look a bit too easy.
I saw it but agree that the finding owner side made it look easy.
I grew up not far from that area in London and can asure you that you would not want to bring 3 kids as single mothers up in these areas!!! I drive past these flats quite often and it is a real dump. But still the warehouse was great but as usual some developer has got it and it will be another semi-bland loft style appartment with cheap granite and white tiles everywhere.
I missed last week's which I gather was very disheartening - the building, in Scotland, was eventually sold to a developer to bulldoze! The prog I gather featured people who wanted to rescue and repair a derelict traditional building. The owners were keen to stress that it had been in the family for generations etc. but - money talks.
It's very difficult - people who offer what is a reasonable price for a building have no chance against developers able to offer huge amounts based on the profits they potentially may receive from demolition and re-development of sites.
Sometimes, of course, these people get their fingers burnt. We have had such a case locally, where a Grade II building (empty and in need of rescue), its small stable with hay loft (listed as curtilage) and chunk of land (ancient burgage plot with many trees with protected status) was bought by several people and permission sought to 'restore' the building (ruin it in my opinion...) turn the stable into another house (which was to be so altered it would have been unrecognisable) and build thirteen rather bland bungalows on the land, removing many trees in the process.
The Geo Group, SAVE and myself all objected, as did several neighbouring home owners. I gave them an outline on the grounds on which they should object - often people object but without knowing really what would count and what wouldn't at planning committee level. I did some research and pointed out that the history and justification for much of the alteration of the listed building was a load of baloney. Its setting would be ruined by the bungalows, the demolition of part of a (Listed) wall (the justification was that demo was required to make a new access for the bungalows!) was against national policies, etc etc.
The owners withdrew the plans (planning was not going to recommend that they be approved, although that frequently does not prevent the councillors on the committee from passing them...) and the place is up for sale again - I gather the house is under offer. Sadly, though, the place has now been split up, no doubt further applications will be made for the land. Again however, this one isn't simple - building here is outside the 'local plan' and any development over a certain size has to have a play area as part of it. The access is onto a road with limited views for oncoming traffic.
Although possibly the developers have had their fingers burnt a little, they are stiill now going to make a profit on the re-sale - although not as large a one as they would have done had they been able to have their plans passed.
It was obvious that they hadn't much idea when they bought about national planning policies and local policies for the area.
The sad thing is, when the place first went on the market, a local resident made a sensible offer. he wanted to repair the house, use the stable, and keep a couple of horses on the land. It would have been perfect. Now this sort of rescue is not possible without offering a great deal more money.
The trees were given protection by TPO's last year, when the local authority arboriculturalist gave them a clean bill of helth, subject to some lopping and trimming taking place.
The developer hired his own, who said that the trees were dangerous and should be removed. The LA cannot apparently go against this sort of supposedly 'independant' advice, but countered by insisting that any tree cut down had to be replaced with a new one...
I saw the first one, and I was very disappointed. Instead of "how to rescue a ruin" it was about "how to find the owner of a ruin". Definitely misrepresentation if you ask me!
Haven't bothered with it since.
But I believe, David, that there's a new series imminent that actually deals with restoration projects. Can't remember when, or on what channel, I'm afraid, but it will be interesting to see what it's like.
Fingers crossed.....
Often, though, it's the finding the owner and persuading him or her to part with the building that is the really difficult part - which is why so many buildings remain At Risk.
I went to BBC for a try out as presenter, but did not get it, as they prefered an "experienced presenter to an experienced professional" - or that was what they told me. Anyway, as my wife has so cruelly pointed out - "you have a great face for radio".
When I went to the interview it was quite clear that the thing they were really interested in was finding an owner of a derelict building. They wanted problem scenarios to explore, not necessarily old buildings and they were not necessarily too bothered about the technical side (or did not appear to be).
As for the actual programme, I saw odd bits, but was busy trying to rid my computer of trojans, worms, etc that had got past my security.
Never mind - it may soothe you to remember that the AJ recently termed the presenter 'cosmopolitan fop and former RIBA President'... (the same report which mentioned the 'Heritage Heart-Throb from S*VE' which that person has not been allowed to forget... <IMG SRC="http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/discussing/smileys/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT=""> )- a report on a debate about London office space.
Several of those who know him (MH) have called him much worse...
Yes, S*VE had some input too. It's not been really what I thought it would be, although quite interesting. I have the feeling though it was all put together very quickly, and possibly grew organically as problems which hadn't been expected reared up and schedules had to be followed, budgets met, bandwagons lost wheels etc.
Quickly - YES it was only a few months ago that I went for the interview and the programme was still only being researched! I had expected it to be out next year, not this.
I've seen a couple of episodes. It may not be perfect, but I was heartened to see someone arguing passionately for saving perfectly good houses that happen to be old and currently unoccupied. The statistic about the number of empty houses in London was frightening - why build millions more when there are millions sitting there unused?
The other programme is 'Restored to Glory' - BBC2, Thursdays at 8 p.m. Also good, although of course it focusses on the human angle of 'Will they get it finished? Will they come in on budget? Will the experts like it?' I would have liked some more technical detail, e.g. why did they need to remove the cement mortar (very drastically with an angle grinder)? (Yes, I understand the answer, but many viewers might not!)