Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:David Tennant's application to build house extension | |
Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
Date/Time: | 11/11/15 12:04:00 |
The only reason for posting on this thread initially was because whilst I didn't know the details of the case, I wanted to make the point that height is just one of the many components of design considerations. As it turns out having had a chance to review the application myself I'm not personally of the view that the proposal fails to preserve the character of the Conservation Area. But that's just my view, and as I said if the application ends up being refused and that decision appealed then it will come down to the view of an independent Inspector. Whilst I don't share the views of the WC&GS (which in itself isn't that unusual, although I have at times appeared independently of them but on the same side at planning appeals) I respect what they do and I know how active they are generally, so I don't think it's fair to suggest they are being entirely unreasonable in their views on this particular application, or that they ignore bigger development threats. In answer to your last query, I honestly don't believe what you say will weigh heavily on the committee, and, to be frank, nor should it as whilst personal circumstances can carry some weight, such circumstances would have to be exceptional (e.g. medical requirements or such like) to overcome the planning considerations. Remove the fact the applicant is 'famous' from the equation and Council Planning Officers and Councillors make similar decisions on an almost daily basis. Notwithstanding that, it will surprise me if the Planning Committee members support the Officer recommendation in this case, simply because some of the other posters on here, I really don't think the proposals harm the property or the wider Conservation Area and knowing some of the Members who sit on the Committee as I do, I think they will feel the same way. |