A recent row over the council's refusal to allow a homeowner to keep solar panels on his barn roof continued today on BBC Wales news (not online). The row centres around the fact that the dwelling is a listed building and although the barn is not listed, it is within the curtilage. The homeowner, a Mr Bazalgette has also lost a planning appeal and will eventually be forced to remove the panels.
The question is whether or not solar panels are detrimental to the historic setting, something of a subjective view, and this case has highlighted the inconsistent and muddled approach taken by different local authorities. Carmarthenshire council, meanwhile, has said that it will continue to take a 'balanced' approach, whatever that might mean.
I'm not quite sure what the council's current interpretation of 'balanced' is, but perhaps, as a basis, they should take into account their decision in 2011 to let the chief executive put solar panels on his cowshed roof, also in the curtilage of a listed building, and in a Conservation Area. The application was in his wife's name.
Surely, on balance, that should mean the all-clear for Mr Bazalgette. Or are chief executives' curtilages different from everyone else's?
The question is whether or not solar panels are detrimental to the historic setting, something of a subjective view, and this case has highlighted the inconsistent and muddled approach taken by different local authorities. Carmarthenshire council, meanwhile, has said that it will continue to take a 'balanced' approach, whatever that might mean.
I'm not quite sure what the council's current interpretation of 'balanced' is, but perhaps, as a basis, they should take into account their decision in 2011 to let the chief executive put solar panels on his cowshed roof, also in the curtilage of a listed building, and in a Conservation Area. The application was in his wife's name.
Surely, on balance, that should mean the all-clear for Mr Bazalgette. Or are chief executives' curtilages different from everyone else's?
8 comments:
Roll the advert....
This is not just any old curtilage, it is a chief executive's curtilage.
Camera plays lovingly on the old cowshed and its smart new roof features, with erotic music playing, as we admire the solar panels.
wow !! get out of that !!
It is disgraceful but not surprising. When is this council going to have to answer to a public inquiry? It is the disparity of planning decisions that has to change.
This case clearly highlights that.The new administration surely ,must challenge such perverse decisions
" Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Now I wonder who I have in mind.
Well, seems mrs dark lord has set a precedent. Mr Bazalgette should use this as an example of a balanced approach and a reason why the panels should not be removed.
Unless of course there is good legal, economical and structural reason.
As Anonymous at 14:20 said, 'wow !! get out of that !!'
Touche
Bloody hell! What next?
It's carry on Mark James.
There has to be a Public Inquiry into this planning department - it is long overdue. It's so blatant.
Mark James says "I can have it but you can't " How much more blatant do they have to be before there are consequences. This man has to go.
As unlikely as it sounds, the solar panels in this case may be perfectly OK, and we can rest assured that the County's irreplaceable heritage assets are being properly safeguarded by the Council. But even if they are completely out of place in the setting of a listed building, I have no doubt that the Council would see that such harm was outweighed by the supposed public benefit of providing succour to a senior officer, without which he might decide to take his talents elsewhere.
Post a Comment