What is the point of planning consultation?

I was quite disappointed to hear the JR Smart were given permission to knock down the historic university buildings in Splott last week:

http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/wal ... f-projects

It raises the serious question: if you have more than 2,000 people sign a petition objecting to this development. what is the point of planning consultation if those views are not taken seriously? Clearly the council will just do what it wants and disregard the concerns and objections of its citizens.

This isn't like, say a supermarket development moving into a small town (we've had enough of those in recent years) that no-one wants, being able to justify their development on the basis of lasting job creation (in theory). Nor is this a major development like Captial Quarter, which will bring much needed development to a derelict area of Cardiff.

No, this proposal is for a boring blot of flats that will come at the expense of yet another piece of Cardiff's architectural heritage!

I'm sure there are plenty of other schemes that have been given approval that other people were equally opposed to.

Is 2,000 alot in terms of it being a percentage of the total population of that area? Were all 2,000 actually from that ward? I don't know and I'm not judging either way.

Ignoring the loss of a good or bad building and replacing it with something average at best, is 2,000 significant or not?

That's the bit that's important for me democracy wise.

According to the 2011 Census, Splott had a population of 13,261.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splott

So 2,000 would be roughbly 15%, considering all those who signed the petition were residents of Splott (doubtful). Then I suppose you're then left with the assumption that those who don't object are in favour, which isn't necessarily the case.

My point is, there are a considerable number of people who are opposed to the demolition of this building, including historical groups in England who recognise the importance rather more that Cadw sadly. It's also a rather large number for a relatively small scheme, which wouldn't compromise Cardiff's growth and development if it were knocked back. So, what's the justification for losing a piece of our heritage?

I just think it's such a shame that Cardiff has lost and is continuing to lose so many of its historic buildings and once they're gone, they're gone forever. I would much prefer if Cardiff adopted a similar redevelopment strategy to Dublin or Paris, that is, build a new business district with all your modern architecture outside of the old town/city.

Yes, of course build new schemes like Central Square etc. for business. That's vital for Cardiff as a capital city and I love tall buildings, I design them for a living. But tourists, especially those from the US, Asia, Australia don't come to the "Old World" to see towers of glass, steel and concrete. They come to see character which they can't have and Cardiff would do well to remember that.

How much better would the bay look if it still more buildings like this one? Left to rot and fall down be replaced by a boring baige building.

Or how about this for a Queens St Station entrance? Look at the garbage they've built in its place. Not example a shining example of contemporary architecture.

There is a legal requirement to consult on planning so that people can object. Sometimes objections will be raised that are "planning considerations" - things like amenity, pollution, traffic, obviously poor design. Other times objections will be raised that are not legitimate planning considerations. Things like affects on house prices or views.

And the number of objections is not itself a planning consideration. You can have one objection but if it raises a significant legitimate issue - for instance, significant loss of privacy and overshadowing of a single neighbour - it can lead to refusal. Or you can have 3000 people signing a petition raising general concerns about a development, but it still go ahead because the issues raised aren't that strong.

Now in this case we have a building proposed for demolition that has not been deemed worthy of listing. An unused building at that. The planning authority don't really have a legitimate reason for refusal no matter how many people sign a petition. Something would need to change - the building being listed, for instance.

In my view its good that planning works this way. Planning should be something of a technocratic exercise where developments can be refused for a number of restricted and well-defined reasons that relate to specific negative impacts on neighbouring occupiers or the wider area. It shouldn't operate as a popularity contest.

I agree that old architecture is sometimes worth preserving - but not always. The York hotel is a gonner for instance, and I remember calls to rebuild the old Central hotel after it burned down - another non-starter.

In certain cities, the old architecture is key to the city's allure - Paris and her grand boulevards, Dublin and Temple Bar, Edinburgh and the grand Newtown and quaint Oldtown. In others, including arguably London, apart from a few key buildings, the city is not about architecture, but instead, the activities and culture that can be found there. Cardiff is also largely in that category, with two notable exceptions: the Castle, and the Civic Centre.

To large extent I agree with the points you raised. But I think people have become incredibly cynical about the planning process as objections seem to carry very little weight, even (in my own personal experience) neighbouring developments have led to a devaluing of a property. There's a "what's the point" attitude now.

I think Cardiff had some fantastic buildings and you only need to look on some forums on the subject to see how much we've already lost. Sadly, there are some (especially down the bay) which are at risk and there seems to be little done from the authorities to save them. The trouble is, many people don't really appreciate just how much character they add to the city.

Not only that, many of the grand old buildings are simply of a much higher quality of building materials and craftsmanship and they age better. The civil centre, Coal Exchange, the Old Library and such like are still going to look fantatistic in 20 years time if they're maintained. Do you really think these new buildings around Central Square and Capital Quarter will? Look how tired some of the cladding on the Stadium is starting to look now. It's not even 20 years old yet.

I should add really, that in the case of this building, it's arguable more of a failing of Cadw not to acknowledge the significance of the building. Given it's significance to the history of university education in Cardiff, I'm surprised that it wasn't. But then people in heritage are usually worse than planners in my opinion.

I don't think that building in the Bay was left to rot - I think it was destroyed by fire.

Cardiff isn't alone in losing a lot of 'grand' buildings' in the post war period and compared to the likes of Liverpool, Bradford, Glasgow etc we probably got off lightly. The problem is that there weren't all that many grand buildings to start with. I think we sometimes kid ourselves that Cardiff is an architectural delight. I don't think it is. We have a small pocket of good Victorian commercial architecture in the Bay and a slightly larger area of the same in the city centre.

The three things that set Cardif apart - for me - are the planned civic centre (very rare in Europe), the city centre castle and a city centre stadium. That creates a sense of place and I suppose a lasting impression on visitors.

In terms of using older buildings the difficulty is that they are no longer fit for the purpose they were built. They have to be converted to other uses which can cost a lot of money. The Splott University is a prime example. JR Smart will have done their sums and considered whether the return on 10 flats in Splott would justify the outlay of renovating the building and clearly concluded that it would be cheaper to demolish and rebuild. The problem lays with listing. I think the building should have been listed due to it's history but as soon as Cadw decided differently the writing was on the wall. The same happened with the Vulcan.