| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Totally Daft | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 21/08/14 14:21:00 |
| The problem is Colin that a Council can't/shouldn't designate a Conservation Area on the basis of speculation (i.e. "better the devil you know" about what could replace an existing building(s) which has little merit. Forgetting any relevant regulations for a minute, the dictionary definition of a Conservation Area is "an area of notable environmental or historical interest or importance which is protected by law against undesirable changes." Does this collective stretch of CHR and TGT fit that definition ?. Generally speaking this is a problem with the legislation, in that there is no halfway house, so where a Council is faced with the demolition of an unlisted building outside of a Conservation Area its choices are (a) upset local residents and Members by allowing the demolition, or (b) keep the locals happy. Now whilst many people would say the role of the Council is to do (b), as I always bang on about in many situations covering many aspects of Council work the relevant legislation that governs that work doesn't necessarily have (b) as it's key component, which is why inevitably from time to time Councils get taken to the cleaners by developers etc. |