Guardian in balanced article shocker (building on gardens)

[briSk]

Maybe it's just because I actually agree with this chap but..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/13/gar...

you could still build houses in the gardens of houses why not just tweak planning so you can;t build flats..???

[Tuna]

The problem is that planning is broken at the core, so pretty much any changes are just rearranging the deckchairs. They could introduce any rules they like and the system as a whole will still leave us with poor and inconsistent planning, and shameful architecture.

Oh, and whilst I'm at it, that article is nonsense. For a start it takes the government figures and press release as true. As an 'architectural critic', the author should know that gardens have never been designated as 'brownfield' sites - they have never had a separate designation as they're part of the assigned plot for residential development. As such, they've always had the 'right to build' - and it has always been up to the local planning authority to decide if development is appropriate.

He should also spot that the 180,000 figure is made up. There simply aren't the statistics available to identify 'garden grabbed' properties. All the government is able to identify is housing built on 'previously residential' sites - which will include knocking down an old bungalow to build a modern detached house.

Finally, the old 'we must protect rural Britain' nonsense comes up. Rubbish - if you preserve isolated rural villages in aspic and prevent any form of development, they can be strangled and die. Many villages could cope with expansion to allow one or two additional buildings without harming anyone (apart from the NIMBYs who deserve no sympathy) - and spreading the development into the hundreds of thousands of villages would have far less impact than creating poorly considered 'new towns' from scratch. Spreading the pain would also avoid the state we have at present where pet project developments go ahead, providing highly targeted niche housing for the current perceived need. These are a disaster in the long run because, even if the need remains (unlike the recent boom in one bedroom flats), the housing stock becomes wildly unbalanced.

Grrrr...

Edited by Tuna on Friday 18th June 11:19

[cornishgirl]

Tuna said:

The problem is that planning is broken at the core, so pretty much any changes are just rearranging the deckchairs. They could introduce any rules they like and the system as a whole will still leave us with poor and inconsistent planning, and shameful architecture.

Am I right in thinking that most of the 'shameful architecture' was created by people who were not architects at all but housebuilders, developers and contractors who didn't use architects? I'm thinking of some of the more modern horrible housing estates.

[Tuna]

cornishgirl said:

Tuna said:

The problem is that planning is broken at the core, so pretty much any changes are just rearranging the deckchairs. They could introduce any rules they like and the system as a whole will still leave us with poor and inconsistent planning, and shameful architecture.

Am I right in thinking that most of the 'shameful architecture' was created by people who were not architects at all but housebuilders, developers and contractors who didn't use architects? I'm thinking of some of the more modern horrible housing estates.

Quite probably. The issue is that planning is complicit in allowing such housing to be built. Rather than rewarding, encouraging and supporting high quality architecture, planning is set up to prevent, restrict and control house builder's options. Look at some of the new towns and housing estates that have gone up. You can bet that they have gone through endless planning discussion, and planners have 'played architects', whilst the developers have gone for the safest options possible, embellished with some little detail that is the current planning favourite.

Look at any local village or town. Every one of the houses built in the last sixty years has been through planning. Can you honestly say that our street scenes have benefited from the planners guidance? How is it any better than streets and towns built before then?

[briSk]

i would support small scale residential development in villages (i could sell my land to them! ). but the problems come from large scale development (my personal opinion etc). that's why garden grabbing IS a better solution than ONLY being able to develop small bits of true brownfield and making 'enormo-villages'.

i agree with you on the figures though.