| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Morrisons Supermarket site for sale! according to Kath the Editor | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 22/09/15 12:43:00 |
| I think that's where we are odds with each other, because at the end of the day regardless of what the average person in the street thinks, ultimately any proposals will be decided on the basis of planning legislation. I concur with much of what you say, but the Conservation Area extension is a nonsense. It's one thing to designate a new Conservation Area which includes some unsuitable buildings (although generally that will be avoided where possible, unless for example an unsuitable building is landlocked on all sites by buildings of merit), it's another to extend a Conservation Area by only including two sites (Morrisons and the county court) neither of which possesses any architectural or historical merit. It would quite simply be a complete misapplication of the legislation and the High Court would throw it out and inevitably the Council would face a huge legal bill. It's interesting that you cite the Chiswick extension, which was a knee-jerk reaction to a prior approval application to demolish the Packhorse & Talbot pub, and which a High Court judge took a very dim view of. The only saving grace for LBH in that case was that they had done some background work previously about extending the Conservation Area (but not progressed further due to resource issues), but in the case of St. Paul's there is no way any professional (or indeed Joe Bloggs) could put forward a credible argument as to why either Morrisons or the county court is, based on its architectural merit and/or historical signficance, worthy of any protection. |