Captain Tom

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?
 
festive said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes if the relevant planning process had not been followed especially if it was next door to me
 
Dereekoo said:
Yes if the relevant planning process had not been followed especially if it was next door to me
Click to expand...

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?
 
festive said:
Noone here has given me a decent reason yet other than 'they're too rich already'.
Click to expand...
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.
 
If a pound was donated for every time Captain Tom spun in his grave, another million would have been raised by now.
 
denso13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
trazor said:
If a pound was donated for every time Captain Tom spun in his grave, another million would have been raised by now.
Click to expand...

Careful where you mention this, or you could make a mint yourself perhaps?
 
festive said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
festive said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes to the first part and no to the second.
 
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.
 
denso13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
festive said:
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?
Click to expand...

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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top