I've bitten my tongue on this thread as I've not really known how to respond in the light of the tone of the 'discussion' and that my background is probably not of interest to the applicant (my qualifications are in the built environment and planning rather than the arts - personally I find it unfortunate that my picture of the applicant, someone who apparently has done so much positive work locally, is tainted by the odd way he has presented himself on this forum). But in the hope that this thread can return to the level of good debate that is generally (but not exclusively) found on the forum here are my thoughts.

My immediate reaction on looking at the designs were to be taken aback (something good art and architecture should probably achieve). I wasn't sure I liked the design and thought little more about it. In following the thread I've looked through the planning documents in detail a number of times since and as a standalone building I've actually come to quite like it. I like the juxtaposition of the tower and the low-rise building and the styles they use.

Where I struggle is with the building in context with Westbourne Drive, not in terms of its style (I'm in favour of a mixture of good architectural design) but scale. I'm struggling to think of any other local examples of new builds/rebuilds where the applicant has been granted permission for something so much taller/bigger than the surrounding structures and I worry that this is where the application would fail. Even in my street of 'ugly' 3 storey townhouses I would not expect to be granted permission to rebuild mine to 6 storeys.

I'm less sure about how it will relate to Hindsley Place as I've never ventured down there and neither has the Google StreetView car.

I'm also not sure how the applicant's reputation should play into things. He apparently has a track record of successful builds and has been active locally which should give the planning authority confidence to work with him. It should not, however, be used as a reason to accept a proposal that *might* be wrong for the site it its current form.

In an interesting parallel with another thread we're all aware of there are also issues about what level of concession should be made in return for reviving what is currently a tatty and vacant plot.