Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
Usually in planning regulations (certainly over here) that doesn't just refer to a generic rural character but the specific rural character of the locale. Something might be beautifully in keeping with the countryside, but not necessarily in keeping with the style of building traditional to that area.
|
Style traditional to the area? All that gives you is;
Quote:
Little boxes made of ticky tacky,
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
|
What's the chances of getting planning permission without a design the commission is familiar with, that's been done a thousand times, that's like every other damn house? I'll bet in order to do anything different, you'd need a pile of documents by lawyers, architects and engineers, costing more than the building. THAT, is not fair.
I agree before issuing what we call an occupancy permit, the powers that be have a right to inspect the building to make sure it's structurally safe, and the wiring/plumbing meet the codes. But style? That's bullshit, and only applies to the little people with limited funds.
Look at London, ferchristsake, the Gherkin, the Eye, City Hall, even Royal Albert Hall. Are they, "in the style of building traditional to that area"? Hell no!
It took money, big money, money not available to the schmuck on the street.