Quite correctly, the Planning Committee sought to act in the interests of residents by refusing the owners of 115 Elgin Crescent permission to excavate a basement which would have extended under the Crescent itself(!)
 |
| BEAUTIFUL ELGIN CRESCENT |
The Committee also took into account the noise and inconvenience that would have be generated.
Sure enough, the applicant appealed to the Planning Inspectorate who not only allowed the Appeal, but awarded costs against the Council.
Any suggestion that Mr Bore might have incited the applicant to appeal would be mischievous and unfair.
However, there is no doubt that the decision by the Planning Inspectorate adds muscle to Mr Bore's Iron Fist.
I have seen this planning application and I do not understand how someone can extend their home beyond the footprint of the land they actually own. Surely this is theft of someone else's land? Presumably this is land owned by the Royal Borough? Will they be required to pay for this extra land and keep it properly maintained to ensure the roadway remains safe for traffic?
ReplyDeleteA perfectly valid question given the recent incident where a basement excavation at the junction of Edith Grove and Fulham Road caused the adjacent thoroughfare to collapse. I hope the Council invoiced the property owner for the cost of the subsequent roadworks. But perhaps that's too much to ask for ...
DeleteAnybody can apply for planning permission to develop anywhere - even on someone else's land. But presumably if the developers actually tried to implement this planning permission beyond their own freehold footprint, then the Council would take enforcement action to stop them? Or am I living in a cloud cuckoo land where we have an effective planning department?
ReplyDeleteThis sets an extraordinary precedent. So according to Mr Bore there is nothing to stop anyway excavating under the Queen's Highway to add value to their home.
ReplyDeleteAlice and Wonderland....
I just read the decision by the Inspectorate. What is evident is that the success or failure of an appeal is largely determined by how valid and thoughtful a case the Planning Department puts forth as to the reasons behind its decision. It is clear in reading between the lines of the Inspectorate's decision is that Mr. Bore and his team did not put forward a persuasive case. I personally question Mr. Bore's motivations and am personal suspicious that he wants these types of decisions so that he can scare Councillors into approving things going forward. Perhaps that is unfair, but I have seen enough at this point to have my reasons for such a view point.
ReplyDelete