|
Published in Building Design
magazine 23.03.07
Fair objections
I don't agree with Piers Gough (Debate
March 9) that the public is encouraged to object
to all applications regardless of the facts.
Our local amenity society has over 1,200 members
and non, as far as I know, is rabidly reactionary
or nauseatingly self-righteousl
We aim to safeguard our town's
better features and enhance where we can by
promoting good design and planning. To quote
from a recent letter of objection: "There is more
to respecting the traditional values which
characterise our heritage than reproducing 'clip
art' traditional features combining the trite with
the banal."
Readers will recognise the sort of
estate design we were objecting to. When we
do oppose a proposal we include constructive
suggestions. Our main problem is that bad
designs are the norm and too often the work of
designers who don't know (or care about) the area.
Oliver Palmer, chairman, Horsham
Society planning committee
Published in Building Design
magazine 23.03.07
Local triumph
Your readers may like to know that,
since I last wrote (March 23), our council has
rejected the application to which I referred.
The application was for 80
dwellings and, as in the case of the application
by your correspondent John Crawley, it was
recommended by planning officers for approval.
However, it was rejected unanimously by the entire
Planning Committee of 27 councillors. Their
reasons were the layout (dictated by the county
surveyor’s traditional road pattern) and the poor
designs of the houses.
The worry is not only that the
views of the officers and the members conflicted
but that in Horsham the officers supported the
scheme because they didn’t realise that it was a
bad one, while in John Crawley’s case the officers
supported the scheme because they realised it was
a good one.
Oliver Palmer
Horsham, Sussex |
