Gents,Regarding the suggestion of extending the Conservation Area (to extend the county court site), aside from the difficulties in extending a Conservation Area purely to prevent development, are we really suggesting that the court building (or the Morrisons site) has some architectural or historical merit which makes it worthy of statutory protection ?.If we are, then I won't have a pint of whatever you're drinking, because it's clearly damaging to one's health...Joking aside, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever to extend the boundaries of the Conservation Area to include the court site, and I'm sure we're all in agreement with that.As for the 'change of designation' to the Morrisons site, I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was never solely designated for retail use only. It's also wrong to say that some of the issues with the local plan fell on deaf issues, one only has to read the Inspector's report to note the points the Inspector raised about the shortcomings of some elements of the plan, but nevertheless that Inspector declared the plan 'sound', which essentially meant Members were entirely right to adopt it.But, going back to the Morrisons site, I'm sure it's designation always identified it as having mixed use potential, it's a town centre site and to be honest if any Council, either as part of a local plan examination or at a planning appeal, tried to convince an Inspector it should only be used for retail purposes, an Inspector would give the Council very short shrift.If you really want a retail use on the site I can have a word with my fast food client and see if they want to put a drive-thru/take-away/restaurant on the site ?! - thought not !.But I do agree with the general sentiment, but as I often say when it comes to planning merits residents don't do their credibility any good at all if they lose all sense of reality, such as extending the Conservation Area to include the county court/Morrisons.
Adam Beamish ● 3610d