<https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/solar-panels-put-
kings-college-26184985>
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <9Qm8q+CGtO5jFw56@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk> scribeth thus
>
><https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/solar-panels-put-
>kings-college-26184985>

Whoops!..

https://tinyurl.com/2c5ej7va
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 09/02/2023 12:49, tony sayer wrote:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/2c5ej7va

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 ...

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 12:47:24 UTC, tony sayer wrote:
> <https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/solar-panels-put-
> kings-college-26184985>
> --
> Tony Sayer
>
>
> Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.
>
> Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.
I think you need a camera to properly reveal youself, aka dick pic.

In article <ts2r2g$m533$1@dont-email.me>,
Tim Ward <tim@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> On 09/02/2023 12:49, tony sayer wrote:
> >
> > https://tinyurl.com/2c5ej7va

> 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 ...

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.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

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

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9Qm8q+CGtO5jFw56@bancom.co.uk...
>
> <https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/solar-panels-put-
> kings-college-26184985>
> --
> Tony Sayer
>
>
> Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.
>
> Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.
>
>

On 10/02/2023 09:06, Brian Gaff wrote:
> 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.
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!)

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

In message <5a7409fb74charles@candehope.me.uk>, at 13:38:04 on Thu, 9
Feb 2023, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> remarked:

> 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.

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".
--
Roland Perry

On 10/02/2023 14:39, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <5a7409fb74charles@candehope.me.uk>, at 13:38:04 on Thu, 9
> Feb 2023, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> remarked:
>
>> 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.
>
> 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".

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".

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

On 10/02/2023 17:03, Tim Ward wrote:
> The trick is to write better rules next time
hahahahha

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

In message <ts5tdf$13ifb$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:46 on Fri, 10 Feb
2023, Tim Ward <tim@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>On 10/02/2023 14:39, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <5a7409fb74charles@candehope.me.uk>, at 13:38:04 on Thu, 9
>>Feb 2023, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> remarked:
>>
>>> 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.
>> 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".
>
>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".

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".
--
Roland Perry

On 11/02/2023 10:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>> 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".
>
> 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".

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

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

In message <ts7td1$1clf0$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:15:45 on Sat, 11 Feb
2023, Tim Ward <tim@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>On 11/02/2023 10:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>> 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".

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

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.
--
Roland Perry

On 11/02/2023 14:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>> Yes. But choosing whether or not to designate a particular area as a
>> "conservation area" is, in effect, local councillors making a law.
>
> Those tended to have been done ages ago.

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".

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

In message <ts8b82$1e278$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:01 on Sat, 11 Feb
2023, Tim Ward <tim@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>On 11/02/2023 14:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes. But choosing whether or not to designate a particular area as a
>>>"conservation area" is, in effect, local councillors making a law.
>> Those tended to have been done ages ago.
>
>Depends where you are. In many areas there are, or have been recently,
>campaigns from people wanting their area to become a conservation area.

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.

> 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".

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/
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 15:27:31 -0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

> In message <ts8b82$1e278$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:01 on Sat, 11 Feb
> 2023, Tim Ward <tim@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 11/02/2023 14:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes. But choosing whether or not to designate a particular area as a
>>>> "conservation area" is, in effect, local councillors making a law.
>>> Those tended to have been done ages ago.
>>
>> Depends where you are. In many areas there are, or have been recently,
>> campaigns from people wanting their area to become a conservation area.
>
> 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.
>

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.

--
Alan

Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

In message <op.1z7kykzkl776by@alansdell>, at 15:50:34 on Sat, 11 Feb
2023, Alan <eternal.september@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 15:27:31 -0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> In message <ts8b82$1e278$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:01 on Sat, 11 Feb
>>2023, Tim Ward <tim@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 11/02/2023 14:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. But choosing whether or not to designate a particular area as
>>>>>a "conservation area" is, in effect, local councillors making a
>>>>>
>>>> Those tended to have been done ages ago.
>>>
>>> Depends where you are. In many areas there are, or have been
>>>recently, campaigns from people wanting their area to become a
>>>conservation area.
>>
>> 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.
>
>Don't think being in a Conservation Area is as bad as being Listed.

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

>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.

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