In the blog below I outlined how the Wealden Local Plan is dead and without a five year land supply all local policies that restrict the supply of housing are out-of-date and national policies apply instead – namely the presumption in favour of ‘sustainable development’ set out in paragraph 11d of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

What is ‘sustainable development’ in this context? It sounds like a contradiction in terms and reading Wealden’s work on sustainability you’d think, all things considered, that there is little scope for ‘sustainable development’ in Wealden.

Hailsham, Wealden photo Charlesdrakew

That’s not what central government thinks. Whilst on the one hand it is requiring ‘sustainable development’ through the NPPF on the other hand it is requiring the delivery of many more homes (previously 950 on average plus some of Eastbourne’s need which currently stands at 300 – 400 per annum).

The answer is that ‘sustainable development’ is a relative term. Sites that are relatively more sustainable than others are going to secure planning permission whether at district council level or at appeal. These sites are more likely to be abutting or close to existing settlements especially those deemed sustainable in the council’s own ‘settlement hierarchy’. They are more likely to have good access and road links, close to local facilities (doctors, dentists, schools, shops, sports facilities) close to public transport (buses and trains), employment space, road, water and sewerage infrastructure etc. As well as this a significant level of ‘windfall’ sites, which will be related to unsustainable locations including some in the AONB, will also secure planning permission.

A lot of potential sites will be coming forward. Good sites supported by a high quality sustainable design forming part of a well thought out and well prepared application will stand the best chance of success.

The Great Fire of Barking 9 June 2019

It was ‘Barking mad’ to construct the balconies of the flats in the recent Barking fire of timber. Perhaps they should have built them in Dagenham instead which, as they say, is three stops past Barking.

The use of external timber cladding in high and medium rise buildings has become increasingly popular as it is fashionable, ‘eco’ and above all cheap – seemingly ignoring the obvious fact that wood catches fire easily. The more that timber is exposed the more easily fire can cross the facade of a building and leap from building to building – a lesson that was learned 350 years ago in the Great Fire of London after which brick and stone replaced timber.

Over recent years I’ve seen more and more timber used on the facades of high and medium rise buildings and thought ‘how on earth do you access that for maintenance?’ Maybe the more obvious question would be ‘how will that burn?’ In the case of the Barking flats it is suggested that they ‘received approval by the relevant authorities’. They probably did as balconies do not normally form part of an escape route and the purpose of the Building Regulations is to save life not property.

The Great Fire of London September 1666 artist unknown

In this article in the Sun on the Barking fire ‘Dad-of-two Carl, 40, said he had just ten seconds to grab his children and run. He said: “Apparently there was a flat that started a barbecue, the barbecue was on a carpet and there was a mattress on a wall. The barbecue fell over, I don’t know how, the barbecue fell on to the carpet and caught alight.”’  Sounds not dissimilar to the Great Fire of London which started in Thomas Farriner’s bakery on Pudding Lane when a spark from his oven fell onto a pile of fuel nearby.

Temporary increases in the Permitted Development (PD) regime that allowed homeowners to build bigger single storey rear extensions without the need for planning permission which were due to expire 30 May 2019 have now been made permanent. These increases cover single storey rear extensions of up to 6m on semis or terraced homes and up to 8m on detached houses.

Edwin Booth, Hamlet, 1870. PD, or not PD, that is the question.

PD rights are a bit of a minefield as the rules are often hard to interpret. There are frequently misconceptions about PD and these are the ones that I commonly come across:

1. PD is what is permitted without planning permission. It is not necessarily as much or as good a solution as what might be available if a planning application is made and approved. So PD may not be the optimal solution.
2. PD rights are often hard to interpret for a specific project and if a property is subsequently sold the incoming purchaser could seek confirmation that what has been built is indeed PD. Therefore in most cases clients apply to the local council for a Lawful Development Certificate which is in some respects similar to a householder planning application. So an application to the council may be needed in any case.
3. PD rights are restricted in ‘designated areas’ such as conservation areas, National Parks (such as the South Downs National Park), an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) (such as the High Weald AONB) and for listed buildings. So PD may not apply.
4. Building Regulations approval is still required. So a set of design drawings will be required in any event.

Always worth talking to your local architect to avoid a missed opportunity and/or a costly mistake.

Skilled craftspeople of all kinds will be needed to restore Notre Dame cathedral in Paris following the fire that destroyed the gothic oak frame and roof, the spire and most of the interiors. Master carpenters and stonemasons will be needed to get roof and the walls back together and then a raft of specialists to reinstate the interiors. Cathedral grade skills like these are in such short supply nowadays that it could determine how quickly the work proceeds. The astoundingly complex oak frame and roof, known as ‘the forest’, were held to be one of the greatest masterpieces of Middle Age design and construction.

This assumes that the intention is to faithfully restore Notre Dame. In the world of architectural conservation there are various philosophical responses to fires such as this. ‘Ruinists’ say leave the building as a ruin – a romantic ghost, ‘modernists’ say replace with something that speaks for its time, ‘replicationists’ say what was there must be restored. The ‘replicationists’ will surely prevail at Notre Dame but what does ‘replication’ mean?  Does it mean an authentic reconstruction of the whole thing using the original materials and techniques even where hidden from view or does it allow the use of equivalent modern means to achieve the same effect?

Sagrada Familia aerial view

Sagrada Familia Exterior view

After the fire that destroyed parts of Windsor Castle in 1992 it was decided that, with the exception of the areas that were redesigned such as St George’s Hall, the work would use whatever modern materials and techniques were necessary to recreate the interiors that were destroyed by the fire. This is in contrast to the reconstruction of the roof of York Minister cathedral which was exactly replicated in oak after the fire in 1984.

Sagrada Familia interior view

The fate of Notre Dame makes me think of another great European cathedral – the as yet unfinished Sagrada Família in Barcelona – started in 1882 and now 70% complete. Heaven forbid but how would you ever approach an ‘authentic’ restoration of a hybrid building like this. Antoni Gaudí‘s early work was in traditional carved stonework but from 1998 whole parts of the building have been prefabricated and craned into place. Large steel reinforced precast concrete elements, modern high-strength concrete, stainless steel, engineered wood, glass and light metal elements have all been used to speed up construction, increase safety and reduce cost. As well as this 3-D computer aided design has been extensively employed. The result is spectacular but certainly one to have the philosophers scratching their heads over what is meant by ‘authentic’ restoration.