| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The case against a Conservation Area for Northfields | |
| Posted by: | Raymond Havelock | |
| Date/Time: | 04/03/24 10:31:00 |
| And your point is? If you look at how CAs are structured you will find that it depends on the category of the CA. Or simple local authorities policy on planning and aesthetics. The picture shows just how nice an area can look irrespective of architectural merit if unspoiled and maintained. And the fact it is very sought after to live in shows that most appreciate it. But as long as the aesthetics are visually correct, then the material - and the benefits of modern materials certainly have a place. With advances in manufacture and far better matching possible, manufacturers and suppliers now compete for a growing market and that has levelled costs. ( Not that any are cheap except for real tat that won't last a decade ) ( Ealing did have quite good standards and guidance advice many moons ago which were applied in all areas irrespective of any listings or CAs. It's why quite a lot is still unspoiled.). The ' Heritage Quarter' much lauded in other parts of the UK as a rather good halfway measure has not really been enhanced or reinforced in a few areas, but things were in place it's just not followed up and ignorance prevails with the endless turnover of planning people who simply don't know the areas they are dealing with well enough. Or is it many cooks and external vested influencers The Categories as proposed are very unlikely to be as strict as Brentham or Bedford Park. More likely to be along the lines of St Paul's/ Griffin Park area of Brentford - and as someone else pointed out, you only have to look around the rest of Brentford to see how that degree of protection is so needed. |