Forum Message

Topic: Re:Packhorse & Talbot Petition
Posted by: Adam Beamish
Date/Time: 14/08/14 18:35:00

I'd take the front pasge story about the lease with a pinch of salt, doesn't really make sense that on the one hand the Part 31 application refers to the demolition process commencing on 8th Septenber, and on the other the suggestion about a new lease being entered into.  Indeed, surely the fact that the current lease is about to expire only adds weight to the potential for the building to be demolished sooner rather than later ?.

As for objecting to the application, it has to be said that such objections are unlikely to carry much weight, unless anyone is sufficiently qualified to find fault with the nature/specifics of the demolition process proposed, which is all the Council can actually consider when determining the application.

Really the focus of any action should relate to the potential conservation area designation, which is pretty much the only way to prevent the demolition of the building through the planning process.

Entire Thread
TopicDate PostedPosted By
Packhorse & Talbot Petition14/08/14 17:24:00 Ben Milman
   Re:Packhorse & Talbot Petition14/08/14 17:37:00 John Parsons
      Packhorse & Talbot Petition14/08/14 17:47:00 John Todd
         Re:Packhorse & Talbot Petition14/08/14 18:35:00 Adam Beamish
            Re:Re:Packhorse & Talbot Petition15/08/14 11:01:00 Paul Corcoran
            :Packhorse & Talbot Petition15/08/14 11:21:00 John Todd
               Re::Packhorse & Talbot Petition15/08/14 12:32:00 Colin Jordan
                  Re:Re::Packhorse & Talbot Petition15/08/14 16:48:00 John Todd
                     Re:Re:Re::Packhorse & Talbot Petition15/08/14 21:49:00 Phil Joseph
                        Re:Re:Re:Re::Packhorse & Talbot Petition17/08/14 12:16:00 Ian Speed
                           Re:Re:Re:Re:Re::Packhorse & Talbot Petition07/09/14 17:01:00 David King

Forum Home