| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Blood on their hands | |
| Posted by: | Anthony Waller | |
| Date/Time: | 26/06/12 13:57:00 |
| Your insights are quite informative but also rather depressing as it reveals such so many tiers slanting away from the ability to object objectively from the point of view of ordinary residents. As for distraction, well you have really answered your own point. As a former media buyer in advertising, we paid top dollar for sites that...distract. Maximum exposure is imperitive. If it fails - you fail and your fired. That's the business. No advertiser would be interested in a site - even for free if it did not have the ability to distract to a high ratio. It's as simple as that, Everyone knows distraction has safety implications. It is why mobile phones are banned whilst driving as is eating drinking and smoking. All are done but it is illegal on the basis of distraction. I gather the advice from planning officers was not to proceed with permission and it was councillors who voted for, purely in the interests of a crock of gold. Which will probably all be lost in a liability case when an accident occurs |