Joined: Oct 26 2006 Posts: 13909 Location: No bowl, stick, STICK!
Revision to the gantry position. Less imposing on the houses behind, steeper incline of the roof. Also the roof of the original section is proposed to be redone. Still not sure how permanent this solution is but I guess with the objections it may be harder to get anything other than this passed.
Revision to the gantry position. Less imposing on the houses behind, steeper incline of the roof. Also the roof of the original section is proposed to be redone. Still not sure how permanent this solution is but I guess with the objections it may be harder to get anything other than this passed.
Joined: Oct 12 2005 Posts: 4251 Location: Barnsley
Khlav Kalash wrote:Revision to the gantry position. Less imposing on the houses behind, steeper incline of the roof. Also the roof of the original section is proposed to be redone. Still not sure how permanent this solution is but I guess with the objections it may be harder to get anything other than this passed.
As I pointed out with the previous plans, it was impossible for the gantry to be accommodated in that design.
This is a far neater solution and will look better also.
Khlav Kalash wrote:Revision to the gantry position. Less imposing on the houses behind, steeper incline of the roof. Also the roof of the original section is proposed to be redone. Still not sure how permanent this solution is but I guess with the objections it may be harder to get anything other than this passed.
As I pointed out with the previous plans, it was impossible for the gantry to be accommodated in that design.
This is a far neater solution and will look better also.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
