• The post you are reporting:
   
  The irony is that, had the Planning Committee accepted their officers initial constraints, then the development would be underway by now. Their concerns for the protection of an AONB led them to originally recommend permission on the basis of a substantially reduced build.
  
  That the area's natural beauty and charm can be dismissed on the basis that it was once a temporary home for TML workers' portacabins is, dare I say it, an ignorant and ill-considered argument. AONB status is there for a reason which is why the law demands particular care and concern when permanent developments are being considered.
  
  One of the main reasons for the Court of Appeal decision was that the Planning Committee failed to pay sufficient atention to their own officers's concerns regarding the environmental aspects.
  
  Re #389 - of course the lawyers will gain. But that is really an issue for DDC who are appealing the decision. The CPRE are a charity and I'm strugging to understand how the use of inverted commas strengthens your case. Perhaps you should describe LoveDover more deservedly as a "charity".

Report Post

Your Name

Reason