Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:David Tennant's application to build house extension | |
Posted by: | Paul Godfrey | |
Date/Time: | 12/11/15 00:12:00 |
I was at the meeting and felt that what I observed was an incomprehensable and unjust planning decision by the planning function. What I saw made me angry and prompted my initial post on this subject. For the benefit of those interested to know, what happened was as follows: The representative of the planning function showed illustrations of the front and rear projections of the current situation and proposed development. They illustrated what appeared to be an uncontroversial proposal to raise the house in the middle of three buildings to the same height as its neighbours, left and right. The detail of the proposal clearly illustrated that effort had been made to match the design to fit in with the adjacent buildings. The diagrams shown to us could easily have served the purpose of providing evidence to support a conclusion that the planning application had been approved. They were not so used. The planner announced that the proposal had been rejected under 'delegated / devolved (?) powers' i.e. out of hand without going to the Planning Committee. The objections were then presented by a local conservation group. A string of eccentric, subjective, incoherent opinions were expressed which avoided standard planning considerations eg precedent, merits of the proposed design. The professional from the design team then spoke about the design elements of the proposal and of how the design had been produced to blend in with the existing street scene. The content of this pitch gave the impression of professional competance and sensitivity to the design brief. The posibility of a 'simple' loft conversion had been considered and rejected on the grounds that it proved not to be simple! David Tennant then spoke of how additional space was required for a growing family, that he really liked the area he was living in and wished to create the required space where he lives rather than have to move to acquire it. It was a reasonable presentation from a person who was clearly keen to do his utmost to ensure the success of his application. What really angered and distressed me about what I had observed was that the Hounslow planners had favoured the eccentric twaddle of the objection over the professionally presented and well reasoned case for the application. It is probably fine to have a proportion of eccentrics in our midst but please let us not let them drive the bus!! As a planning decision the refusal was an absolute injustice and offensive to common sense on the basis of the evidence presented. Fortunately this was recognised by the CAF and the application was referred to the planning committee for their consideration. |