Been looking through the agenda again, and something vague has struck me about the "reason for refusal". Brain is a little fried at the moment, and everything is coming out of it as HTML tags, so thought I'd release it on people still capable of rational thought. The reason for refusal seems to be composed of two parts: 1) the fact that increased activity around the property would "adversely affect the quiet and peaceful nature" of the area. This is probably hard to counter, as more people will mean more activity. 2) "to the detriment of the amenities enjoyed". I believe the second part is the bit that is relevent from a planning perspective? As in, adverse affects on the "quiet and peaceful nature" is not grounds for refusal if amenity is not harmed by it. Now, it seems to me, that "detriment of the amenity" is a fairly subjective term. Exactly the sort of thing, in fact, that the "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" used to be expected to decide in legal cases. I have no idea if the courts still use that test, or if they even still have omnibusses in Clapham. But the test was there for a very good reason, very applicable to planning issues. Any person objecting to any planning application can state that they feel that their amenity is reduced. Without some test of whether that claim is reasonable, to a reasonable person (whether on an omnibus or not), any objection to any application that ws based on that claim would have to be upheld in law. The support shown, from the petition, through the letters of representation, to the general messages flying round t'internet, demonstrate clearly that, in the eyes of countless reaonable people, the residents' claim to loss of amenity is NOT reasonable. Soz that's a bit of a waffle but brain is a little fried at the moment. or did I say that already???