Jenryk’s Fascistic Imposition of Bad Taste on Everyone and Everywhere

Thomas Kinkade Candlelight Cottage 1996

Ah sir you are the artist we have appointed for this painting.

Yes Sir

Well there is a problem.

What is that?

Well we have done some polling through Create Streets.

And the Bad News is your painting looks nothing like the most popular painting on UK Walls.

Free as the Wind Aust Albo 1962

‘If you want to be paid please paint what is popular.’

Of course unlike inside paintings what is outside ALWAYS imposes an aesthetic.

However artists and architects are creatives, there freedom to create should be be stifled by conformity to what is popular. Which is not to say the bulk and prominence of some buildings should not bully their surroundings.

Jenryk’s intellectual flaw is totally contrary to the views of Roger Scruton who was very critical of immensely popular but totally naff artists like Thomas Kinkade. A good artist is likely in the long run to be popular, but popularity does not make good art. Of course no one would confuse such an apparatchik with an intellectual or an artist.

If Jenryks view prevailed development new developments would look like the historicist Chinese recreations of English Villages.

Thames Town China

‘Fascist art glorifies surrender, it exalts mindlessness’ Susan Sontag

Jenryk Accuses Architects of Imposing Dreams on Local Communities

Architects Journal

Housing secretary Robert Jenrick has said his planning reforms will prevent architects ‘imposing’ their ‘dreams’ on local communities

The minister, who was speaking at an event organised by the Roger Scruton Foundation, made the remarks as he argued that buildings developed in the future ‘should be locally popular’ and based on ‘the things that people who live those communities admire and respect.’

‘The built environment shouldn’t be something that is imposed upon local communities, it shouldn’t just be something which is the dream of an architect or what is fashionable to a certain type of person,’ he said. ‘If we can [ensure] that [is the case] then we will make a significant step forward.

Jenrick added that currently ‘we don’t listen to people’s views as to what they want to see,’ arguing that some power over building design needs to be wrestled back from architects and planners who ignore the views of the public.

‘I have strong views on what I like and consider beautiful, but I don’t think it’s so difficult to come to a view on what people, broadly speaking, in a particular place want to see,’ he said.

‘Its been a bit of a false argument to say that all of us disagree on this, its horribly subjective, and therefore we should negate the view of the general public and just go on what a small group of people who are professionals or architects or planners say.’

Under the forthcoming overhaul of the English planning system, being brought forward by Jenrick, local authorities will be responsible for creating design codes for neighbourhoods and even streets based on what is locally popular and historically characteristic.

The planning system will then have a ‘fast-track for beauty,’ which will allow developers to bypass some of the planning process if their proposals comply with the local design code.

The Office for Place, headed by Create Streets founder Nicholas Boys Smith, will aid councils in developing design codes, including by helping them engage with as much of their local community as possible.

‘Young people are generally neglected by the planning system – certainly people who are not homeowners are rarely active participants in planning and the same is probably true for design codes and guides,’ he said.

Jenrick said that there was ‘no point in councils appointing a consultancy to produce [a design code] which does not reflect local views,’ and, responding to a question from the AJ, pledged to try and make young people’s voices heard.

‘One of the objectives for the Office for Place is: how do you actually engage with local communities in a meaningful way – how do you use more accessible ways of meeting people?

‘[There are] people who are younger, people of working age, [and] people who may not go to their community centre or village hall to see presentations on a wet Wednesday evening, but would be very engaged by events online or things they can do on their smart phone.’

Jenrick added that the Office for Place may also look at polling as it ‘thinks through what the tool kit is to ensure that local views are represented and that it’s the complete spectrum of people of all ages’.

New Conservative Administration in Nuneaton and Bedworth likely to Halve Housing Numbers in Local Plan Review

The local plan was adopted in June 2019

Manifesto

Immediately review Labour’s Unfair Borough Plan, including housing numbers.
• Protect existing communities by delivering the roads, health and school services we
need and we deserve.
• Renegotiate Labour’s secret agreement to take Coventry’s overspill.
• Have a fair, open and transparent process for the Borough Plan so your views are
clearly heard.
• Prioritise the development of Brownfield sites first.

Coventry Live June 2020

Council bosses have been forced to undertake a review into the thousands of homes planned for Nuneaton and Bedworth.

The opposing Conservatives, supported by Green Party councillor Keith Kondakor and rebel Labour councillor Makayla Rudkin, forced through a motion that demanded that the Town Hall immediately look at the number of new homes planned in the controversial Borough Plan.ADVERTISING

The Borough Plan is a blueprint for all future development across the borough and includes up to 14,000 homes, several thousand of which are ‘overspill’ from neighbouring Coventry.

It was during a stormy, six hour virtual full council meeting that the motion for an urgent review

Councillor Neil Phillips, cabinet member for planning at the Town Hall, was insistent that the Labour council’s local plan committee had the issue at hand – including revealing a timetable for action for September, and said the motion was not needed.

But Cllr Kyle Evans said the council had promised to review the numbers of homes ‘as soon as possible’ back in April last year  – and that had not yet happened.

He seconded a motion he proposed that called on the council to carry out an urgent review.

Clllr Kris Wilson, leader of the opposing Tories, said: ” I accept we have Covid but that does not prevent any work, some planning officers could be working on things from home for the borough plan review

“The local plan timetable is motherhood and apple pie, it does not set a deadline.

“We want to get this moving, voting to trigger a legal mechanism – it will speak volumes for residents left feeling trampled by this authority.

“It is time for you [Labour] to put your money where your mouth is, let’s do this right by the residents for a change.

“There was a petition signed by over 6,500 people who wanted a review and so far we haven’t been listening as a council, we need to start listening urgently, have the courage and guts to vote for this review now.”

Cllr Keith Kondakor said latest data shows that the borough needs 7,300 homes, not  the 14,000 not 15,000 in the current Borough Plan.

“I have been saying all these years, we need to build 300-400 houses a year, there is a need for housing but not a need to build 14,000 to 15,000 homes – if you try to build it, you start getting empty housing,” he said.

“The whole system then starts collapsing, there is naturally a supply of people, if you try and have a plan that ignores the fundamentals about the amount of people you will have,  half built estates, we won’t reach the trigger points to build schools or GP surgeries and all you end up with is a mess of housing with poor infrastructure.

“The quicker we get really into this, the better so we build the right number of houses.”

After further debate, Cllr Neil Phillips responded to the motion, saying: “It was well meaning but poorly timed. The local plan committee on July 1, a report on this was considered.

“It was resolved that it be recommended to cabinet that, subject to government guidance,  there would be a revised scheme for a clear timetable by the end of September 2020

“There would be a first draft of a list of policies that would be suggested for review – we have 41 policies, some need reviewing, some won’t, it is all evidence based.”

He said the issues of numbers and how they are calculated comes from government – and an update is expected.

He added: “A major assessment of the housing and employment needs of the region – we wouldn’t be able to do this tomorrow.”

He said such a review, which would be based on a sub regional approach, could cost up to £100,000.

Cllr Phillips concluded: “We are moving forward but we are moving forward within the guidelines that we can work with, that is a fact and that is a legal fact.”

But when it came to the vote, the motion was passed with 17 in favour, 16 against. Bedworth Labour councillor Makayla Rudkin broke ranks to side with the Tories.