From The Sun:
AN ARCHITECT could be forced to tear down a £4.65million building where he lives with his family because of a planning row with the local council.
... the 47-year-old is locked in a battle with Islington Council who claim it is out of keeping with the neighbourhood and it is not the same as the original plans submitted in 2012 – which, for example, indicated a brick-faced building.
Mr Taha insisted the switch to stone was subsequently approved by planning officers and they had simply lost, and therefore not uploaded, the most recent designs.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, admitting that he didn't get the right planning permissions (or some proof that his submitted application had been approved) is not very good advertising for an architect.
A whiff of something unwholesome
3 hours ago
12 comments:
If their only problem is the facing material, then why could the owner be "be forced to tear down a £4.65 million building". Just unstick the stone from the facade and glue on some bricks instead.
S, deleted comment, fair point.
B, clearly, there's more to this than the meets the eye. But that wasn't the point.
B, also it clearly isn't a £4.65 million building. It's a £2 million building on a £2.65 million plot of land.
MW - £2m? Must be made of extraordinary materials!
M, ok I was rounding up. Plus it's expensive building an infill site like that.
It doesn't look much like a family home to me
Like much of the utter garbage going up in London at a moment, this might be a nice bit of architecture in isolation, but in the context of its surroundings, it detracts from them. Shows a complete lack of imagination.
Architects and planners need a good flogging, IMHO.
B, yes, redo the facade in brick seems like a sensible compromise.
G, read the description, it's office downstairs, then rented flats and his family lives on the top floor.
BJ, that's personal taste. In isolation, I think it looks pretty good. But that wasn't the point, the point is, would you hire an architect who is famous for messing up the planning permission?
Having done a little research, it turns out the "facing material" is actually huge blocks of stone balanced on top of each other, like a high-rise Stonehenge.
Back on topic, the architect claims that he had the revised design approved, it's just that the council have lost the plans. So why hasn't he got a copy of the revised plans with an "approved" stamp on them, then. Maybe, perhaps, because it was all done with a nod and a wink and a brown envelope and that particular planning officer has moved on?
B, I wouldn't wish to accuse him of anything more than general administrative incompetence.
MW that was my point. If he got planning permission for a home and then erected a largely commercial building, then he really has no room for complaint
Post a Comment