On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:20:49 -0000 Peter Crosland wrote :
If that was said, or implied, then the planning officer was quite
wrong. Did this happen recently and with what local authority? The
main objective of the listed building regulation regime has never
been to preserve buildings in an unaltered state. Sensible and
realistic alterations should, and indeed are, permitted. Was formal
application made and if it was rejected was the decision appealed.
If not then you have no grounds for complaint.

This was 1996. The original wall (mid Victorian) had the gates at one
end next to the church door, thus preventing the construction of a
ramp, and had originally been a low wall with railings. In the last
war the railings had been removed and the spaces bricked in with non
matching bricks leaving a wall about 5' high which was unattractive
and not very reassuring to walk by after dark.

The new wall (http://www.twickenhamurc.org.uk/picture.htm) went back
to a low wall with railings and the gates moved to allow for the ramp
to be built. None of the neighbours objected. The local residents'
association were sent the plans before submission and not only raised
no objection but wrote a letter saying that they felt that what we
proposed would be a great improvement and this went in with the
application. So if ever there was an application that should have
been rubber stamped approved this was it IMHO.

But the LB Richmond planners were determined to fight it all the way,
first claiming that if the original architect had wanted gates in the
middle he would have done so (there was probably a tree there in
18xx) and secondly claiming that the mismatched wartime infill was
part of our heritage and 'told a story'. After going to meeting with
them and hearing this and their "stuff the disabled" comment I was
fuming. A bit of work in the library revealed a relevant law case,
South Lakeland DC v. Sos, so I wrote back to the planners quoting
this, asking them to determine the application forthwith, and saying
that if it was refused I would appeal and ask for costs. The approval
came back a week or so later.

But of course the truth is that none of this should have been
necessary: if I had been acting as a fee-charging professional for a
client they would have ended up with a four-figure bill.

But this is not untypical: back in 1991 Chartered Surveyor was
telling readers planning schemes in LB Richmond to "assume you're
going to appeal before you put in the application'

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]