Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Government proposes stripping away protection for heritage buildings
From the Telegraph yesterday:
Read more at The Telegraph..........
In previously unreported plans, the Government is to downgrade protection on old buildings and those in conservation areas in order to "benefit developers" and "reduce the number of applications for planning permission rejected on heritage grounds." The professional body representing town planners today launches an unprecedented attack on the proposal as "fundamentally flawed", "unfit for purpose" and a potential "charter for people who want to knock buildings down." The president of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) has also attacked the plans and experts estimated that tens of thousands of listed and heritage properties could be knocked down as a result of the proposed change.
Read more at The Telegraph..........
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
We must build more houses for the workers before the capitalists get in and kick them into the streets. It doesn't matter if it's awful, just the basics is fine. All these snobs who like their old buildings are depriving working families of a home.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Yes, lets knock down Britain's beautifully built Victorian & Edwardian architecture and replace it with box rooms for the poor and wonderfully thought out consumerist mecas such as Shopping Shitty. Just not in Lausanne Rd.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
John, regarding all the snobs who are depriving homes of "working families": Is it desirable that a whole family works? At what age should children be sent out to work? Some parents have children working in shops at a worringly young age and it may impinge on their education.
Spare a thought for the families of the unemployed or even a whole family of unemployed people. And what about those single people who are working? Should housing policy revolve around "working families" exclusively? Where have I heard the phrase hard "working families" before? Does it mean anything useful or is it little more than a political slogan?
Not all old buildings are worth keeping in whole or in part, but some are and those who like them don't have to be snobs.
Quality of construction does matter, because dwellings aren't just for today's "working families" but if built properly, ought to last for generations (even if not built adequately, housing can still exist for a long time. Just look at the Favelas of Brazil). Or do you envisage housing of a standard so shoddy and "awful" that it risks coming down on the heads of working families?
.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
I agree Clive. I've seen some of the workers' homes in Russia and by God they were "basic".
Re the "snob" comment ... a snob is someone who looks down on others because he feels that they are inferior to him. If John M calls other people snobs, this by definition makes HIM a snob :-)
-
-
I was trolling Clive. :)
But don't think for a minute that there are not people in our council, indeed in our national government who think that way.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Here's the English Heritage response.
-
Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on
-
I heard something about this on the radio t'other day and felt apprehensive. The town planners seem to be up in arms, and having just read through English Heritage's reply, they don't appear too impressed, either.
Hugh, you must be a bit worried about the comment on page 2, section b of EH's letter, the government don't appear to attach enough attention to the degree that heritage plays in place making.
I hope the Salisbury can withstand the developers if the government doesn't alter it's plans, don't you John?
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
One of the main problems with the listing system, is that there is no guarantee of money to then maintain the buildings. In many cases, it takes a determined group to bid for cash from various pots to make sure these buildings are not then left to rot.
What can happen is that even sympathetic development that would bring the building back into use can be blocked because of the protection process. Some in the heritage world believe that it is better to have an empty, intact building with no maintenance than to bring a building back into use with changes. Many people, especially owners of large properties are often prevented from putting them to good economic use because of the process.
That said, with the likes of the developers we see operating around here (at present, if a developer wants to knock a listed building down, he has to go to the trouble of finding some local arsonists to set fire to it first) I would be concerned that checks are not in place. Like much of the current governments housing policy, I doubt that this will be robust enough to prevent abuse. The petition that Anne links to is asking for fundamental changes to this proposal. It is likely to be flawed as the Pathfinder policy . we should be very wary of it.
-
-
By far the largest listed building in our Borough – and probably in the whole country – is Ally Pally (Grade II). I learnt yesterday that the total floor area is 28 acres (!).
I was fortunate recently to have seen over much of it and can tell you the place is vast. Changes will have to be made. In my view, there has to be a large commercial component in an solution.
The council has wasted many tens of millions of pounds during the past 29 years on this place and there is little to show for the enormous expenditure. The council-controlled trust board lurches from crisis to crisis and has proven itself beyond all reasonable doubt to be incapable of looking after our asset that that they wanted to take control of in 1980.
The council's previous policy was to sell it off in one go ("holistically") as a "developer shell". Their favoured bidder was once described in the Evening Standard as a slum landlord and that developer now sues our Charity for £6,200,000.
I believe the 15-year old flog-it policy may have been abandoned. There has to be a better way.
Is Avenue House a possible governance model?
.
.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
