Topic: | Re:UPDATE - Advertising on Boulton House | |
Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
Date/Time: | 30/10/12 13:38:00 |
Theo, Interesting (if this type of thing rocks your boat). Based on the press coverage the Royal Botanical Gardens have never applied for a JR, yet your posting implies they did apply - generally I find the media inaccurate when it comes to planning matters but clarification would be appreciated. Personally speaking, I struggle with this proposed 'quashing' (not really an appropriate word as the decision notice granting consent was never issued). As I said before the decision to approve was taken following a detailed Officer report and also legal advice at the committee confirming that financial considerations couldn't be taken into account (for the reasons I advised). With the debatable exception of one of the reasons (the fact that 100% of the tenants supported the application) for the overturn quoted in the minutes, all of the reasons for that overturn relate to subjective visual amenity considerations. The only other consideration which can be taken into account when assessing advert consent applications, namely highway safety, isn't an issue (however much certain posters would try to argue otherwise) as the relevant statutory consultees have no objections on highway safety grounds. Which leaves me to deduce that the sole reason why the Council is 'quashing' this committee resolution is because one of the five reasons for the original Member overturn isn't a material consideration. Now whilst I'm not saying that is necessarily wrong, one wonders if the same stance would have been taken had Joe Bloggs complained about the decision, as opposed to the Botanical Gardens. Ans secondly, if what I deduce is correct and essentially this whole saga is the result of Members considering something that isn't a material planning consideration, it really doesn't fill anyone with much faith in the Planning Committee, does it, especially in the light the recent investigation into Councillor M. Gill ?. |