Take down your 'castle', twat told

[DaveCinzano]

More details on Trowbridge Castle Twat here:

Builder in one-man protest 'not afraid of prison' as planning row escalates

The council dismissed his appeal against its refusal to allow him to convert a former pizza takeaway into a HMO.

www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk

Councillor Palmen has obliged the Telegraph with a spot-the-difference photo:

 

[two sheds]

It would be helpful if they'd put "Stewart Palmen (left) ..."

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

More details on Trowbridge Castle Twat here:

From that article

...with up to seven rooms spread over three floor..

Looking at the size of the place each of those rooms must be pretty fucking cozy.

I guess all the kids who grew up reading Harry Potter are going live the dream of the room in the cupboard under the stairs.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Almost a case of take down your gargoyle, twat told but turns out the gargoyle was erected in protest at a previous planning decision

Builder erects sculpture of council leader as Wiltshire planning row turns ugly

Developer in long-running spat with Trowbridge town council erects gargoyle-like sculpture of council leader on roof of building

www.theguardian.com

Can't beat petty planning squabbles. It's amazing what lengths some people will go to.

 

[Serge Forward]

Surely local councils should be dismantling any castles with a trebuchet.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Is it the castle that has the trebuchet or the council?

Either way I'd watch from a distance.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I'm really liking the local councillor's attitude to the whole thing .

If it does not, Palmen said he’d like to buy it from Thomas. “It would be nice in the garden.” he said.

Should've said he'd stick it on his house, as "I have an 'in' with the planning dept."

 

[platinumsage]

Take down your tower blocks:

Knock them down: Greenwich Council orders developer to demolish riverside towers in Woolwich - The Greenwich Wire

Greenwich Council has demanded that developers tear down a riverside development in Woolwich because it has been built without planning permission. Phase 2 of the Mast Quay development, next to the Woolwich Ferry, was completed at the end of 2022 and residents have now moved in. But the finished...

greenwichwire.co.uk

 

[existentialist]

Take down your tower blocks:

Knock them down: Greenwich Council orders developer to demolish riverside towers in Woolwich - The Greenwich Wire

Greenwich Council has demanded that developers tear down a riverside development in Woolwich because it has been built without planning permission. Phase 2 of the Mast Quay development, next to the Woolwich Ferry, was completed at the end of 2022 and residents have now moved in. But the finished...

greenwichwire.co.uk

I foresee a corporate bankruptcy.

 

[bluescreen]

Comer Homes has been asked for comment.

One can only imagine.

 

[bluescreen]

I foresee a corporate bankruptcy.

I foresee much rubbing of lawyerly hands

 

[kalmatthew]

I foresee much rubbing of lawyerly hands

It's a really intresting one. I'm glad to see the developers get their comeuppance but do feel sorry for the people living in it and can't help feel that forcing them to fix the problems plus a nice big fine would be a better way to resolve this especially given the housing crisis

 

[platinumsage]

I’m not sure the long list of problems is fixable, only some of them might be.

Developers can’t be allowed to build crap that is blatantly not compliant with their planning consent and then get away with it by applying some sticking plaster and a bit of cash.

 

[kalmatthew]

I’m not sure the long list of problems is fixable, only some of them might be.

Developers can’t be allowed to build crap that is blatantly not compliant with their planning consent and then get away with it by applying some sticking plaster and a bit of cash.

This is fair and the list in that article did have more detail than the one I'd seen (things like turning the gym back into commercial space and planting the garden seemed achievable in a way that turning back into a glass clad building or fixing thr footprint isn't) but returning it to it's pre developed state seems odd. A knock rebuild to the original planning conditions feels like a more useful punishment.

 

[skyscraper101]

I'm pretty sure I looked at a flat either in that building or very close by back in February. It was tiny for the price, and totally not what I was after. I didn't get a great vibe from any of it.

 

[two sheds]

Rather than demanding they pull it down it's a shame they can't just confiscate it.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Rather than demanding they pull it down it's a shame they can't just confiscate it.

It's so blatant that it should be subject to forfeiture under 'proceeds of crime.'

 

[existentialist]

It's so blatant that it should be subject to forfeiture under 'proceeds of crime.'

Except that it's essentially worthless, given that it's pretty obvious the council aren't going to keep it as-is.

It makes you think that perhaps developers should have to lodge some kind of bond so that, if something happens, it's on them.

My guess on this is that it was just nodded through on the basis that the council wouldn't dare refuse permission, that the builders/buildings were "too big to fail". I hope the LA sticks to its guns.

 

[two sheds]

Another heart-warming story.

 

[danny la rouge]

Another heart-warming story.

View attachment 403010

I don’t understand why wealthy landowners, with half a mil to spend and presumably plenty of land, don’t just apply for the appropriate permission and build an approved structure somewhere sensible that they don’t have to take down.

 

[ddraig]

I don’t understand why wealthy landowners, with half a mil to spend and presumably plenty of land, don’t just apply for the appropriate permission and build an approved structure somewhere sensible that they don’t have to take down.

arrogance and entitlement!

 

[two sheds]

Bloke up the road spent years putting in planning permission for house, getting refused, putting in planning permission, ... Eventually got it passed and built his house. I quite respected the determination but the site is a shit hole, abandoned cars all over and he used to take in rubbish on industrial levels with no permit, burned mattresses - all right next to well used bridle path in the middle of lovely countryside.

Couple of years ago after complaints the council sent a letter telling him to clear up the site or they'd do it for him and charge him for it. I knew at the time they weren't serious though because the letter even had not date by which he had to do it. Nothing happened.

 

[WouldBe]

Was chatting to my neighbour the other day to let him know his boiler was dripping. He was telling me he'd pointed out a load of problems to his landlord who said there was nothing wrong and he'd get the council in to prove it. Council turned up and agreed with the tenant that the faults needed seeing to, so they've given the landlord 8 weeks to sort them out.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Another heart-warming story.

View attachment 403010

Here's a link to the full report - https://archive.ph/SzOOQ

 

[Artaxerxes]

I don’t understand why wealthy landowners, with half a mil to spend and presumably plenty of land, don’t just apply for the appropriate permission and build an approved structure somewhere sensible that they don’t have to take down.

Because they wouldn’t get it because we can’t build shit in this country

 

[T & P]

I've just sicked a little...

From the article...

One of the arguments made by Mr Harvey for allowing the property was that he was a local employer who needed to remain in the area

 

[cupid_stunt]

Here's a link to the full report - https://archive.ph/SzOOQ

LOL @ the photo of the villagers.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I don’t understand why wealthy landowners, with half a mil to spend and presumably plenty of land, don’t just apply for the appropriate permission and build an approved structure somewhere sensible that they don’t have to take down.

He did apply:

When the planning application was refused the planning officer wrote a very strong summary about it being completely inappropriate.

But took a punt:

He probably spent £60,000 building it and it is probably worth £500,000 now.

 

[High Voltage]

The controversial property sits on agricultural land . . .

And my bold

He applied for two retrospective planning permissions . . .

 

[teuchter]

LOL @ the photo of the villagers.

View attachment 403017

Congratulations - you have responded exactly as the daily mail sub-editors intended.