They must have had three leccy bill in!! Solar on Kings chapel!!!

[tony sayer]

[tony sayer]

In article <9Qm8q+ [e-mail]>, tony sayer [e-mail]> scribeth thus

Whoops!..

[Tim Ward]

That is exactly the purpose of planning committees - to overturn officer recommendations from time to time.

Note that the officer recommendation isn't necessarily what individual officers think is the right thing to do - it's an analysis of how policy applies to the application, and where competing policies pull in different directions the report will say so.

I've had officers say to me (not out loud in the meeting!) "we're recommending refusal, but we expect to lose this one". Whether that was a hint to me that they thought we *should* vote against their recommendation I wasn't entirely sure ...

[whisky-dave]

I think you need a camera to properly reveal youself, aka dick pic.

[charles]

and. I've met a planning officer who couln't read drawings and decided the proposed extension was the original building and vice-versa. He's mow a Senior Planning Officer.

[Brian Gaff]

I know there has been much debate over a lot of listed buildings having panels, including the one you mention, recently. Its heritage against functionality. If nothing had had a drain, and they refused to retro fit them for whatever reason, would that be acceptable? Over in Hampton Court some years ago, the historic water supply from a clean source on the other side of the river was cut off in favour of a normal supply, It was not used any more and was leaky and very old, so they had to dredge part of the river there, so they removed the pipe. They kept the water source which is now in the under-croft of the John Lewis store in Kingston Upon Thames and some other buildings on the opposite side for historic reasons. Brian

[Tim Ward]

Eg students living in a mediaeval building suddenly being told they can't cook in the staircase kitchen because it doesn't meet fire regs and the listed building people wouldn't approve the changes that the fire regs people demanded.

"But students have been cooking in this kitchen for 500 years and it hasn't burned down yet" didn't hack it.

(Eventually there was a compromise - remove the curtains, which weren't listed, and carry on cooking!)

[Roland Perry]

In message [e-mail]>, at 13:38:04 on Thu, 9 Feb 2023, charles [e-mail]> remarked:

My old college room-mate is now a planning inspector (unless he's retired again - that was his job after retiring from being the head of a distant local authority planning department).

I've read some recent planning appeals (not his) and they said something along the lines of "it's not something we would approve of aesthetically, but unfortunately it's within the rules".

[Tim Ward]

Yes. Planning is all about telling people what they're not allowed to do with their own property, which is actually a bit of a big deal.

The law says you can build anything you like unless there is a planning reason, which can be upheld in court if necessary, for refusal. "Nobody likes it, including planning officers and inspectors" isn't a planning reason.

The trick is to write better rules next time, either through the normal cycle of the local plan process or as supplementary documents ... but of course you can only write rules within the rules for writing rules ...

When I was chairing a planning policy committee that was making decisions on such rules I did always remind the members that "what we're doing today is writing laws telling people what they can't do with their own property".

[The Natural Philosopher]

hahahahha

[Roland Perry]

In message <ts5tdf$13ifb$ [e-mail], at 17:03:46 on Fri, 10 Feb

2023, Tim Ward [e-mail]> remarked:

Although there are other layers of more national rules like "what you can do in conservation areas" as well as "what you can do to Listed properties".

[Tim Ward]

Yes. But choosing whether or not to designate a particular area as a "conservation area" is, in effect, local councillors making a law.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ts7td1$1clf0$ [e-mail], at 11:15:45 on Sat, 11 Feb

2023, Tim Ward [e-mail]> remarked:

Those tended to have been done ages ago. The only changes I can detect locally are actually a reduction in the acreage. Perhaps a recognition that the original area was too ambitious, and contained numerous properties or streetscapes which had frankly should never have been included in the first place.

[Tim Ward]

Depends where you are. In many areas there are, or have been recently, campaigns from people wanting their area to become a conservation area. In some cases of course these are drawbridge puller-uppers - "I've built

*my* extension, but if my neighbour is allowed to build one too it'll make the place look untidy".

[Roland Perry]

In message <ts8b82$1e278$ [e-mail], at 15:12:01 on Sat, 11 Feb

2023, Tim Ward [e-mail]> remarked:

Because they think it scores house-value points I suspect. But then they maybe don't realise the personal drawbacks. Until they want to get replacement windows fitted etc.

That's just one small issue to have to deal with. hers include "I've just moved next door to a pub that's been in business 400yrs, and you need to shut them down because of the noise".

cf: /church bells/trains at the end of the garden/smells from farmyard animals/

[Alan]

Don't think being in a Conservation Area is as bad as being Listed. We live in Conservation are in Ely, and had no problem in replacing soft wood sash windows with uPVC. Yes we had to apply for Planning Permission, as there were no Permitted Rights, but Parish and Ward Councilors had no issue. And Conservation Officer took a pragmatic approach to modern replacements.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1z7kykzkl776by@alansdell>, at 15:50:34 on Sat, 11 Feb

2023, Alan [e-mail]> remarked:

True, but it still restricts what can be done. (If not, then the concept is moot).

I'm told they are much less pragmatic in Bury St Edmunds.