Guildford Crescent - 96m 30floors

Demolishing of the facade has begun, the latest planning application has them knocking it down then recreating it in the new building, which makes the whole thing even more farcical, but I guess at least the site will now be used.

Seems they jumped the gun though...


https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... 656387.amp

What are they going do about it? They weren't protected and there was no valid reason to deny prior approval for demolition. The council could play games and reject the amended planning application, but that will ultimately only delay the process at best and land the council with the bill for an a appeal at worst.

Even if they did manage to enforce reconstruction, what would that achieve? they are going to rebuild a facsimile of the original anyway. The retained facades would have been almost like 'Trigger's broom' with the amount of stuff that would have to be replaced. Realistically, only the structural masonry could have been retained; the render, decorative masonry, windows etc - anything you can actually see - would all have to be replaced.

It's not really 'playing games' to insist that developers wait for requested permission before knocking stuff down. This is why we have a planning system.

It would be “playing games” if they reject the revised planning application in retaliation for the developer not waiting for approval.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... t-27665175

I'm really surprised that people think this is ok, and why they think major developers should just be able to ignore the planning process.

I don't think it's OK, but I am trying to be realistic and keep some perspective.

Ive lost count of the number of people demanding that the developer be forced to rebuild it, oblivious to the fact that is literally what they intend to do; the endless bloviating about 'cultural vandalism' and 'ripping the heart out the city'. Its ridiculous.

For what it's worth, I think there probably should be consequences for ignoring the planning process in this way, although I don't agree with the average WoL commenter who seems to think it should be a hanging offence. I'd rather see the site get developed than have it tied up in a lengthy battle with the planners though. There may be a valid reason to tear-up the s106 if the cost of retaining the original facade was offset against the requested contribution. The site logistics will certainly be simpler by not having to work around the old facade and its scaffolding.

Well, this is one occasion where I don't care if that's the attitude of the average WoL commenter. It won't do either the council or developers any harm to know that there is strength of feeling about at least respecting and considering what gives the city it's character, and that developers should not be able to act unilaterally.

I don't disagree with your points about perspective, but perspective works in many directions - it could be argued that the perspective of the council is skewed towards development at every opportunity, and an exemplar such as this is a useful reminder that this isn't necessarily the best approach if you want to preserve what makes the city interesting and liveable.

It's not really about the merits of this specific development, although I think it's a real shame to have lost Guildford Crescent, and particularly Gwdihw as a venue. But it is about the principles involved - it's not enough to pay half arsed lipservice to preserving heritage, and the money-driven motivations of developers should not be allowed to trample over proper, considered city planning.

The developers shouldn't be allowed to flout planning laws, but it happens everywhere.
At the end of my street a number of trees had tree preservation orders, but the greedy developer cut them down on a Sunday, so that no one from the council could turn up to stop him.
He ended up with a fine, and was ordered to replant the trees.
I don't think he did, or pay the fine.
In terms of the Guildford development though I think the average WOL reader describing it as an "historic area" is laughable.
The crescent itself had zero architectural merit.
It's a shame that the businesses had to go, but businesses often have to relocate in a city.
The Toucan club did it multiple times.

Is there an update on this?

I would really hate for this to end up being a dud development, seeing as they have destroyed an area cultural and historical significance.

If not, the developers and council need to be held accountable. Disgraceful really.

The above reads a bit like a WOL contribution.
The council did not own the buildings! The owner of the buildings wanted to demolish the unlisted buildings and a council can only object to such plans on the basis of a proper legal detail, otherwise it'll cost them heavily at appeal.

The deal that was agreed was to keep the fascias. Now that deal has been reneged upon, the developer must face consequences, yes. But I don't know how you can blame the local authority in any way here. Sounds like the usual "blame the council" pitch-fork holding marauding mob.