| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Chiswick Village Penthouses | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 28/08/15 00:27:00 |
| Richard (J), Reading the Inspector's decision on the planning appeal, it is evident there was no evidence to support points (b) and (d). I strongly suspect, although having still not been able to track down the associated costs decision, that it is either or both of those grounds upon which the Inspector concluded the Council had behaved unreasonably. I also note the highways department raised no objection to the development, and whenever Members decide to ignore the technical advice of Highways Officers on parking grounds they run the risk of having costs awarded against the authority for unreasonable behaviour. It doesn't always happen, but whereas it is one thing to overturn an Officer recommendation on subjective design or appearance type grounds, to do so on technical grounds when the relevant experts cannot support it is playing is fire. Expressing a personal view, one Councillor I have alot of respect for is Councillor Elengorn from Richmond Council, as often when his colleagues are considering a refusal on such grounds, he will often say that much as he would like to support his colleagues, he will remind them of the substantial risk of costs being awarded against the authority on appeal, and in my experience there are not enough Councillors who fully respect/appreciate the consequences of a refusal based on technical grounds that cannot be supported by evidence. However again I stress I haven't seen the costs application decision, so I am not saying that this was the case with this particular application. Richard G - fun as Vegas is, and with plenty of distractions of all types (although I'm on best behaviour as here with the Mrs !), I still have to keep up with clients and such like so find myself checking the local forums as part of that...back to the craps tables now though !. |