Captain Tom

[festive]

Noone here has given me a decent reason yet other than 'they're too rich already'.

So if this was a poor destitute single parent with a special needs kid would you turn a blind eye to them perhaps building a shed in their garden too close to the boundary, or a 6ft or higher fence or perhaps some other planning breach without approval? Demand it be ripped down and destroyed?

 

[Dereekoo]

Noone here has given me a decent reason yet other than 'they're too rich already'.

So if this was a poor destitute single parent with a special needs kid would you turn a blind eye to them perhaps building a shed in their garden too close to the boundary, or a 6ft or higher fence or perhaps some other planning breach without approval? Demand it be ripped down and destroyed?

Yes if the relevant planning process had not been followed especially if it was next door to me

 

[festive]

Yes if the relevant planning process had not been followed especially if it was next door to me

Derekoo your decision should not be bolstered by such a declared personal interest surely, so if it wasn't, you may still persue or with less vigour perhaps? You could well be fit for the local Parish council or holding one of those fake speed guns in your local village?

 

[denso13]

Noone here has given me a decent reason yet other than 'they're too rich already'.

They built an unauthorised building and got caught out. There was a comprehensive investigation by the planning inspectorate who agreed with the Council decision.

They took a chance and lost.

 

[Trazor]

If a pound was donated for every time Captain Tom spun in his grave, another million would have been raised by now.

 

[festive]

They built an unauthorised building and got caught out. There was a comprehensive investigation by the planning inspectorate who agreed with the Council decision.

They took a chance and lost.

For sure my question was, do you think the right decision was to rip it down? Do you believe the court of appeal should have looked at more reasonable outcome?

 

[festive]

If a pound was donated for every time Captain Tom spun in his grave, another million would have been raised by now.

Careful where you mention this, or you could make a mint yourself perhaps?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Noone here has given me a decent reason yet other than 'they're too rich already'.

So if this was a poor destitute single parent with a special needs kid would you turn a blind eye to them perhaps building a shed in their garden too close to the boundary, or a 6ft or higher fence or perhaps some other planning breach without approval? Demand it be ripped down and destroyed?

So if you have enough money you can do as you please and ignore all the rules?

Well off or not, is irrelevant.

The same laws and rules should be applied to all, equally.

There is a bit of a smell coming from the foundation. I'm sure it's not what the captain would have wanted

 

[just pumps]

For sure my question was, do you think the right decision was to rip it down? Do you believe the court of appeal should have looked at more reasonable outcome?

Yes to the first part and no to the second.

 

[motorbiking]

Grade II listed site though and this is clearly going to be a "house" perhaps sold off in the future. Of course no different to do-as-you-likeys who build houses on agro land and never have policy enforced against them.

 

[motorbiking]

They built an unauthorised building and got caught out. There was a comprehensive investigation by the planning inspectorate who agreed with the Council decision.

They took a chance and lost.

Not quite - they had approval for a specific use. Built it then applied to change use, when it became clear that the approved use could never be complied with. That's my take on it from the news articles I think.

 

[Brigadier]

For sure my question was, do you think the right decision was to rip it down? Do you believe the court of appeal should have looked at more reasonable outcome?

Yes, as it was found to be in breach of planning law.

Like what? Pony up? Which would just be "If you can afford it, the law doesn't apply to you".
(Which many feel is the case already, which doesn't mean the situation should be even further reinforced).

 

[blup]

Most problem too rich to bang in jail fir two years.

Justice ½ done.

It’s not a criminal offence to breach planning control

Blup

 

[Trazor]

It’s not a criminal offence to breach planning control

Blup

That's not always true.

 

[blup]

That's not always true.

Listed buildings yes but this by definition wasn’t an LB

Blup