World Heritage Site protection?
An article by David Hencke in the Guardian today (thank you, M, for pointing this out) has revealed that Tessa Jowell is to announce "buffer zones" around World Heritage sites which will prevent "unsightly" skyscrapers and dodgy home improvements such as stone-cladding or satellite dishes.
This is certainly an interesting development. I suspect it was brought in to save the Government the embarrassment of having the Tower of London put on the "World Heritage Sites in Danger" blacklist - something that would be a first in the developed world - but it will apply to all World Heritage Sites - including Greenwich.
It will apparently give more power to public inquiries to block insensitive developments, which is not going to please a certain South Bank incumbent, one Ken Livingstone.
Ken's just been given extra powers to force local authorities to build high-rise blocks - even against their own wishes - and let's face it, he has never been afraid to step into any kind of brawl.
I expect to see these two rhinos lock horns very soon. I fear that unless the White Paper is written very carefully, it will be full of loopholes. Two immediate contenders spring to mind.
One would be the possiblility of building "sightly" skyscrapers - buildings that have putative architectural "merit." The other - far more likely to be exploited - would be to build the unsightly skyscrapers just outside the buffer zone. What I want to know is how big this buffer zone is going to be - Would Lovell's Wharf be far enough away not to count? The Old Hospital site? Is it ultimately just going to mean that anyone who doesn't come into the immediate area of outstanding heritage just gets blighted with even worse and more dense development than we might otherwise have expected?
Let's watch this one...
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2026582,00.html
This is certainly an interesting development. I suspect it was brought in to save the Government the embarrassment of having the Tower of London put on the "World Heritage Sites in Danger" blacklist - something that would be a first in the developed world - but it will apply to all World Heritage Sites - including Greenwich.
It will apparently give more power to public inquiries to block insensitive developments, which is not going to please a certain South Bank incumbent, one Ken Livingstone.
Ken's just been given extra powers to force local authorities to build high-rise blocks - even against their own wishes - and let's face it, he has never been afraid to step into any kind of brawl.
I expect to see these two rhinos lock horns very soon. I fear that unless the White Paper is written very carefully, it will be full of loopholes. Two immediate contenders spring to mind.
One would be the possiblility of building "sightly" skyscrapers - buildings that have putative architectural "merit." The other - far more likely to be exploited - would be to build the unsightly skyscrapers just outside the buffer zone. What I want to know is how big this buffer zone is going to be - Would Lovell's Wharf be far enough away not to count? The Old Hospital site? Is it ultimately just going to mean that anyone who doesn't come into the immediate area of outstanding heritage just gets blighted with even worse and more dense development than we might otherwise have expected?
Let's watch this one...
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2026582,00.html
Labels: News
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
09:26
4 Comments:
I wrote to the Council in 2003 or so asking for consideration to be given to designating some of the Victorian streets in East Greenwich as Conservation Areas, to the extent that they aren't already (you know... Annandale, Calvert, Fingal, Chevening, etc.)
I got a reply from some Jobsworth saying that these streets were charming enough but didn't have the architectural merit of the Westcombe Park streets that are a designated CA. Unfortunately, this lack of foresight means that we risk allowing these streets to rot as a result of lax planning law, ill-conceived developments (yes, Durkan, that means YOU), silly skyscrapers, and other architectural nightmares.
So people will look back in 50 years time and wonder why we didn't want to save these wonderful streets. Sorry, grandchildren, it wasn't because we didn't care or try.
It is exactly these streets that needed protection from the pile of portacabins stacked on top of each other opposite the Post Office and the log cabins stacked on top of each other on the old school site.
Sadly, Andrekabu, I suspect it's too late. These streets WERE of architectural merit - if nothing else than they were a neat, cohesive little block - but with the bog-awful developments that have sprung up in the last three years, I fear the boat has been missed.
But this is just the sort of thing I fear for with this new White Paper. The area immediately around the World Heritage Site might be saved, but at the expense of the area surrounding the "buffer zone."
Presumably no such `buffers` exist at the epicentre of Royal Historic Maritime World Heritage sites. Cutty Sark shops,how much branding can you take? Now that Greenwich Hospital, Nelson Bakewell and Greenwich Council appear to concur the emphasis will be on building site. Oops, there goes another urban village. We are promised `retail diversity`....we won`t get it. 35%+ rent reviews are hitting all over and some sharp practice on lease renewals, take a lengthy term at a `total market rent` or get out. Expect 2-storey shopping topped-off with 3-storey apartments after the Market Square is demolished. Sorry, I meant `The Island Site`.
It's frightening and you remind me that I haven't written a stiff letter yet (I know it won't do any good, but the choice is to sit back and do nothing allowing them to sleep at night.
Whilst researching something else the other day I found a strange thing that told me that that godawful roof over the market is actually listed. This surprises me, but I guess could be interesting cannon-fodder...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home