An agent is appointed by their client to achieve the best result (or price) in almost all instances. This may result in properties with some history or story, being sold for development if developers are prepared to pay more for the property. Some properties are deemed sufficiently important to warrant Government intervention and the property is protected from development. Others simply attract an interest but aren’t considered so important as to require such intervention.
This doesn’t stop sections of the community from feeling unhappy about any development of any property that they feel is important. The particular one in the following article is one such example. A small clutch of “modernist” architects revere the original owner and designer who was well respected for his work just a few decades ago. As such, they have been quite aggressive and antagonistic to our agency for pointing out the clear potential for development.
On the one hand we have our owners who will get one chance to maximise their return to assist with their living in their latter years and on the other, a clutch of architects who believe that the owners should sacrifice their security and future by only making the property available to those who might want to retain the home. Whilst the home is genuinely appealing, it has not met the standard required for Government intervention and an agents responsibility is quite clear at law; identify the buyer who will pay the most for the property and secure that buyer for the client. If there are any that feel that inspired to protect it, there is nothing stopping them from buying it. Or should it be someone else’s problem?