5 ms·

BUUUT MuHHH PAAARRRKiiiiNNNGGGG!! (And house values). And we can't _possibly_ make the town look different than it did in 1972 because "heritage". We're talkin

BUUUT MuHHH PAAARRRKiiiiNNNGGGG!! (And house values). And we can't _possibly_ make the town look different than it did in 1972 because "heritage". We're talking about a bunch of crusty old church biddies who will literally force you to put the most godawful, hideous house covering in the history of man BACK on your house because they're terrified of being reminded it's not the 70's. (Sorry for the mail link) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592033/Put-pebble-dashing-house-Council-orders-mother-remove-smooth-facade-2-6m-home.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592033/Put-pebble-...

Earw0rm 2y ago
Accurate. In fact, the only post 1972 thing you ARE allowed to do is pave over your front garden and park two Jeep Cherokees (neither of which actually fit in the available space) on it.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  Ah yes, it's a delight that the pavements are now covered in SUV's too because they're too big to park legally. Very in keeping with the distinct cultural heritage of the area.
  - Earw0rm 2y ago
    But build a bike lane or even a bike shed, and they'll drag the city council all the way to the EU Supreme Court, even though half of that demographic voted Brexit.
happymellon 2y ago
And the neighbours don't have any of that awful looking pebble dash.
GasVeteran 2y ago
Yes there are ridiculous rules like that are enforced. However tbh she should have checked first. Rules around how the area should look, should be decided by people that live there. There are many better examples where it makes a lot of sense for the locals to be strict about rules about what can be erected. I used to live near the Village of Corfe Castle. Generally the argument is that the place would lose its character and it won't be the same place anymore if it didn't keep its distinctive look. https://corfecastle.co.uk/the-village/ https://corfecastle.co.uk/the-village/ If you would just start building places that don't fit in with the rest of the village. The village wouldn't have it character and thus it wouldn't have its tourism in the Summer as a result. There countless towns and village with a bunch of heritage that literally goes back maybe a millennia and the argument that we should throw this away to build a load of crap houses (new houses BTW are awful, I've looked at many in the last few years) is completely asinine.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  But it's _good_ when houses look different. Growing up my family would drive around new developments and say "ugg, these cookie-cutter houses all look the same, I miss when you we built unique and individual houses" and then it's jarring to move somewhere where people value conformity above all else and being different is considered bad. God forbid your house has eaves. Explains a lot, actually. I'm not talking about knocking down thousand-year old houses. I note that your example doesn't seem to have a problem putting car parks in, incidentally. But "locals" (aka old people with enormous amounts of time on their hands who bizarrely feel the right to tell other people what their home should look like) insisting that everything stay mediocre forever because they grew up with it this way is a bit much.
  - GasVeteran 2y ago
    I think it is perfectly fine that people that actually live in an area get to decide what it looks like. If people don't involve themselves in that process and it is monopolized by people "with too much time on their hands" that is their fault. If they don't like the busy bodies then they should make time and actually go to the meetings. You decide you own level of involvement in the community. > I note that your example doesn't seem to have a problem putting car parks in, incidentally. It is very interesting that whenever you bring up an example where it illustrates a particular point well, they will try to find anything they can point to so they can dismiss the general point being made. Guess what, a place in rural England that you can only travel easily to via car or coach will prioritise parking. BTW I suspect knowing that area, you probably couldn't build anything other than parking in those places.
    - CalRobert 2y ago
      The challenge is that the people who live in an area use the rules in such a way as to make building new homes very expensive or outright impossible. The people who would like to live in that area have no say, and lack representation. The bigger picture here is that it means even two rational people can inadvertently make the situation worse for themselves. Person A lives in City A, but wants to move to City B Person B lives in City B, but wants to move to City A Person A votes to make it hard to build new homes in city A, because it makes their own home worth more. Person B votes to make it hard to build new homes in City B, because it makes their own home worth more. It makes sense in a self-interested way but both wind up worse off. And I just meant that the car park is butt-ugly and shows the council's true priorities. They could at least put it on the edge of the village.
twic 2y ago
Hold on though, that's not 1970s pebble dash, that's 1920s pebble dash, that was on the house when it was built (ish - seems that area was built up between 184 and 1914). The house is in a conservation area, which means you've got to keep it looking original. If you don't want to do that, just don't move to a conservation area! Found a non-Mail link BTW: https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/planning-inspector-orders-homeowner-leafy-west-hampstead-street-put-back-their-pebbled https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/planning-inspecto...

Earw0rm 2y ago

Accurate. In fact, the only post 1972 thing you ARE allowed to do is pave over your front garden and park two Jeep Cherokees (neither of which actually fit in the available space) on it.

CalRobert 2y ago
Ah yes, it's a delight that the pavements are now covered in SUV's too because they're too big to park legally. Very in keeping with the distinct cultural heritage of the area.
- Earw0rm 2y ago
  But build a bike lane or even a bike shed, and they'll drag the city council all the way to the EU Supreme Court, even though half of that demographic voted Brexit.

happymellon 2y ago

And the neighbours don't have any of that awful looking pebble dash.

GasVeteran 2y ago

Yes there are ridiculous rules like that are enforced. However tbh she should have checked first. Rules around how the area should look, should be decided by people that live there. There are many better examples where it makes a lot of sense for the locals to be strict about rules about what can be erected. I used to live near the Village of Corfe Castle. Generally the argument is that the place would lose its character and it won't be the same place anymore if it didn't keep its distinctive look. https://corfecastle.co.uk/the-village/ https://corfecastle.co.uk/the-village/ If you would just start building places that don't fit in with the rest of the village. The village wouldn't have it character and thus it wouldn't have its tourism in the Summer as a result. There countless towns and village with a bunch of heritage that literally goes back maybe a millennia and the argument that we should throw this away to build a load of crap houses (new houses BTW are awful, I've looked at many in the last few years) is completely asinine.

CalRobert 2y ago
But it's _good_ when houses look different. Growing up my family would drive around new developments and say "ugg, these cookie-cutter houses all look the same, I miss when you we built unique and individual houses" and then it's jarring to move somewhere where people value conformity above all else and being different is considered bad. God forbid your house has eaves. Explains a lot, actually. I'm not talking about knocking down thousand-year old houses. I note that your example doesn't seem to have a problem putting car parks in, incidentally. But "locals" (aka old people with enormous amounts of time on their hands who bizarrely feel the right to tell other people what their home should look like) insisting that everything stay mediocre forever because they grew up with it this way is a bit much.
- GasVeteran 2y ago
  I think it is perfectly fine that people that actually live in an area get to decide what it looks like. If people don't involve themselves in that process and it is monopolized by people "with too much time on their hands" that is their fault. If they don't like the busy bodies then they should make time and actually go to the meetings. You decide you own level of involvement in the community. > I note that your example doesn't seem to have a problem putting car parks in, incidentally. It is very interesting that whenever you bring up an example where it illustrates a particular point well, they will try to find anything they can point to so they can dismiss the general point being made. Guess what, a place in rural England that you can only travel easily to via car or coach will prioritise parking. BTW I suspect knowing that area, you probably couldn't build anything other than parking in those places.
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    The challenge is that the people who live in an area use the rules in such a way as to make building new homes very expensive or outright impossible. The people who would like to live in that area have no say, and lack representation. The bigger picture here is that it means even two rational people can inadvertently make the situation worse for themselves. Person A lives in City A, but wants to move to City B Person B lives in City B, but wants to move to City A Person A votes to make it hard to build new homes in city A, because it makes their own home worth more. Person B votes to make it hard to build new homes in City B, because it makes their own home worth more. It makes sense in a self-interested way but both wind up worse off. And I just meant that the car park is butt-ugly and shows the council's true priorities. They could at least put it on the edge of the village.

twic 2y ago

Hold on though, that's not 1970s pebble dash, that's 1920s pebble dash, that was on the house when it was built (ish - seems that area was built up between 184 and 1914). The house is in a conservation area, which means you've got to keep it looking original. If you don't want to do that, just don't move to a conservation area! Found a non-Mail link BTW: https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/planning-inspector-orders-homeowner-leafy-west-hampstead-street-put-back-their-pebbled https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/planning-inspecto...