I wonder what planet some people are on.
I wonder if people know how much facade retention can add to the cost of any project and how much it can severely restrict what you can get on a site, and the practical problems that can ensue? I have recently been involved in a housing project where the planners insisted on the retention of a facade of what is a fairly remarkable building. The developer objected on the basis of practicality and concern about structural integrity which was borne out by surveys and which my organisation agreed with. No consideration was given to this by the planners who gave into dogma from local amenity groups. The facade has just collapsed through no fault of the developer, other than the degree of disturbance which was inevitable in this type of building project. This means that the external face of the building has to be rebuilt from scratch, which means going back to the drawing board and revised planning for a half complete building. Six months delay at least and escalating costs. Thats the reality of facade retention, and its a fairly common one. It compromises projects and unless well justified I would suggest something to be avoided.

Lets learn from all this indeed. Lets learn that there are those amongst us who prioritise dogma over decent public facilities. Lets learn that regardless of the democratic process it is still possible for organisations like EH and intrenched individuals to disrupt that process. And lets not pretend that EH and the like work without political motivation and dogma of their own because they simply do not. Its time that they were held accountable to the public interest which they pretend to serve.