from the Tivyside, Wed Feb14, 2001:

'Building that Blends in Perfectly'

Dear Editor,

Re Roundhouse planning decision.

It was hard to believe my eyes when reading the inspector's reasons for refusing consent: "...a harmful effect on the natural beauty of the national park if it was allowed to remain".

This for a building blending so perfectly with its surroundings that even though I went to see it I was almost upon it before spotting it. Has the inspector forgotten it was only discovered from the air, and then only because the spotter plane 'caught a reflection from a solar panel'?

"..seriously out of keeping with the general character of buildings in the national park". Considering what some - with honourable exceptions - look like, one could assert that this constituted a point in its favour.

"...sporadic development" makes it sound as if Tony Wrench is starting a trend. How many does the inspector think will undertake the research and sheer hard work that has gone into the roundhouse, or want to live so alarmingly close to nature? He might have allowed it as a one-off rather than condemn it as a precedent or prototype.

"...unsightly and incongruous appearance". Building fashions change, as a glance at any village will reveal. The roundhouse would be incongruous in a village, but that is the point - as it is not meant for village life but totally hidden, it should not be judged by what would pass muster by the roadside.

"...demonstrable harm to the surrounding landscape". I could see none, and I was looking for it. If harm is demonstrable the inspector has only to demonstrate it. Until he does so, his use of the term is not rational argument but gratuitous name-calling.

The fact that neither I nor, I suspect, most of us would wish to live like Tony Wrench is irrelevant. His house is ingenious, unique and the product of deep thought. I admire it. Contrasted with those the rest of us live in, its impact on the environment is tiny. Let it be!