Take down your 'castle', twat told

[teuchter]

You reckon? Isn't it ironic
"Fareham was named the most car-dependent town in the UK by the Office for National Statistics in July 2014 with 538.7 cars registered to addresses in the town for every 1,000 residents.[9]"

This could be a first step towards putting that right.

Introduce a strict CPZ within a certain distance from the theatre. It would then be in the theatre's interest to run a shuttle bus from the station.

 

[Elpenor]

450 seat theatre with just 35 parking spaces. Makes you wonder what, if any fire regs they adhered to...

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

@teuchterland

Gonna use that to threaten BB2 when she plays up, “If you don’t stop I’m taking you to teuchterland!”

“Right, you have five seconds or we’ll be going for two days!”

 

[Elpenor]

House masquerading as a tractor shed

Owners to be booted out of Dartmoor home after 'concealing' it

 

[muscovyduck]

House masquerading as a tractor shed

Owners to be booted out of Dartmoor home after 'concealing' it

So, do councils systematically take stuff like this seriously or not? Or does it depend on what type of council - most of these examples seem rural? How does it work when they get tipped off, do they investigate? I'm fascinated by it all tbh

ETA: I suppose I quoted this post in particular because the situation feels more familiar than some of the others discussed

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The one you quote was inside a national park, the U.K.’s most protected landscape, so no real surprise there.

Guess mostly it’s down to the right palms being greased though.

 

[Elpenor]

I tend to think these are down to someone passing the info on to the relevant planning authority after they’ve fallen out with the landowner

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I tend to think these are down to someone passing the info on to the relevant planning authority after they’ve fallen out with the landowner

My dad lives in a national park and you don’t need people to have grudges there to grass, (he once had a load of bricks delivered at 6am and left on the verge outside his house, by 7am a ranger appeared giving him 30 minutes to move them inside his boundary or be fined), but I would guess that does happen in many cases too.

 

[two sheds]

Two new residents in the village got planning permission for a "games room" that turned out to be fairly huge with two storeys and double garage and the building work spewed mud over the road for a good year. They may have an indoor tennis court in there of course but they live in there and rent out the house for Air bnb. It was a bit iffy because the village hasn't really changed since the 1850s but it didn't have too much visual effect so people let it go.

 

[SpookyFrank]

So, do councils systematically take stuff like this seriously or not? Or does it depend on what type of council - most of these examples seem rural? How does it work when they get tipped off, do they investigate? I'm fascinated by it all tbh

ETA: I suppose I quoted this post in particular because the situation feels more familiar than some of the others discussed

What they don't take seriously is people turning residential properties into commercial ones without planning permission and without paying any business rates.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

What they don't take seriously is people turning residential properties into commercial ones without planning permission and without paying any business rates.

e.g. ?

 

[SpookyFrank]

e.g. ?

eg. the entire airbnb business model

 

[Karl Masks]

All of British history could be encompaased by this thread title

 

[muscovyduck]

But then, once they've been tipped off, a lot of effort still has to go into an investigation right? If something's being deliberately concealed. I suppose I'm finding it difficult to square the circle of the cultural hegemony of "planning permission is corrupt", blatant violations that a lot of us have seen in our real lives, and wider underfunding of councils vs the string of examples and stories on this thread.

 

[two sheds]

yes string of examples but Britain's a big place and a lot of people don't like planning permissions. Round here a favourite is for someone to get on the council, get planning permission passed for their pet project and then leave the council again - heard of that three or four times.

 

[Dystopiary]

Make it compulsory to arrive by public transport and run a shuttle bus to Fareham station. Problem solved.

...except for people who can't use public transport.

 

[Orang Utan]

So, do councils systematically take stuff like this seriously or not? Or does it depend on what type of council - most of these examples seem rural? How does it work when they get tipped off, do they investigate? I'm fascinated by it all tbh

ETA: I suppose I quoted this post in particular because the situation feels more familiar than some of the others discussed

I remember a planner getting shot dead a few years ago cos the dispute went so badly wrong. Somewhere up in Teeside or Durham where they talk funny

 

[Orang Utan]

I remember a planner getting shot dead a few years ago cos the dispute went so badly wrong. Somewhere up in Teeside or Durham where they talk funny

Ooh yeah, tis mentioned early in the thread. Consett. Shit business.

 

[SpookyFrank]

My dad's chair of the parish council and they've spent years dealing with some absolute prick who wants to move a public footpath further away from their house.

The whole process should've been, was the footpath there when you bought the property? Yes? Then fuck off.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

My dad's chair of the parish council and they've spent years dealing with some absolute prick who wants to move a public footpath further away from their house.

The whole process should've been, was the footpath there when you bought the property? Yes? Then fuck off.

Rights of way are pretty much holy in this country and any attempt to fuck with them brings out folk with copious facial hair and strange accents to defend them physically and in court, and the country is immeasurably richer for these people.

 

[Artaxerxes]

All of British history could be encompaased by this thread title

if I was a teacher I'd name a history module after it

 

[mojo pixy]

Take down your 450 seat theatre; entitled home county thespians are told.

New 450-seat theatre in Hampshire built without permission

Theatre bosses are told the venue must stop hosting performances by next February.

www.bbc.co.uk

One case where I'd support an appeal to a government twat to overrule the council.

This could be a first step towards putting that right.

Introduce a strict CPZ within a certain distance from the theatre. It would then be in the theatre's interest to run a shuttle bus from the station.

It's in Suella Braverman's constituency.

Just saying

 

[teuchter]

So, do councils systematically take stuff like this seriously or not? Or does it depend on what type of council - most of these examples seem rural? How does it work when they get tipped off, do they investigate? I'm fascinated by it all tbh

ETA: I suppose I quoted this post in particular because the situation feels more familiar than some of the others discussed

Councils will generally have an "enforcement" officer(s) within their planning department. Their job is to investigate & decide what to do when someone either does something without permission, or doesn't comply with the conditions of the permission they've got.

I think it's rare for councils to pro-actively start an enforcement case - as in, go around and check for themselves whether permission is being followed. An enforcement case usually starts when someone reports a breach of planning.

If you report a breach of planning then they have to do "something". They will usually go and look at it and decide whether a breach has occurred.

In my experience, they will sometimes go and look and say that there isn't a problem (when in my opinion there definitely is) and sometimes they will agree there's a problem but give the person the option to put in a retrospective application, which they then give permission for.

Basically they are chronically underfunded so even though they are supposed to enforce planning law they will quite often find ways to avoid having to do so. They do potentially have the power to get people to take stuff down or rebuild, but of course in practice this means lots of legal expenses & the risk that their decision gets overturned at appeal. If something gets a lot of publicity then their hand can be forced a bit more.

 

[kabbes]

Rights of way are pretty much holy in this country and any attempt to fuck with them brings out folk with copious facial hair and strange accents to defend them physically and in court, and the country is immeasurably richer for these people.

I do agree. But sometimes, somebody just wants to shift a right of way so that, for example, it goes around a garden rather than right through the middle of it. And I’m quite sympathetic to that so long as it doesn’t interfere with the right and practical ability to get across that land.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I do agree. But sometimes, somebody just wants to shift a right of way so that, for example, it goes around a garden rather than right through the middle of it. And I’m quite sympathetic to that so long as it doesn’t interfere with the right and practical ability to get across that land.

Except in Madonna's case, Madonna loses fight to bar ramblers where she did a spectacular Streisand effect of alerting folk to where her house is and how they can come and gawp at it, of course.

 

[two sheds]

yes less (fewer ) sympathy if it's a 135 acre estate

 

[Spymaster]

Might watch that at the weekend if I can find the boxset of ealing comedies.

Here you go: https://ww1.streamm4u.ws/movies/the-titfield-thunderbolt-1953.o8ied.html

 

[SpookyFrank]

I do agree. But sometimes, somebody just wants to shift a right of way so that, for example, it goes around a garden rather than right through the middle of it. And I’m quite sympathetic to that so long as it doesn’t interfere with the right and practical ability to get across that land.

In this case it's not someone's garden but a field running along the bottom of the garden. They want the path moved to the far side of the field which would create a huge detour round three sides of the field instead of one.

The garden itself is vast. The owners have a habit of standing at the bottom edge nearest the path and shouting at walkers suspected of lingering too long. They're absolute scum.

 

[Dogsauce]

I do agree. But sometimes, somebody just wants to shift a right of way so that, for example, it goes around a garden rather than right through the middle of it. And I’m quite sympathetic to that so long as it doesn’t interfere with the right and practical ability to get across that land.

There was a bridle way near where I grew up part of a biggish cycle route, that got diverted so that they could build a massive parking area for imported cars from the docks. What was a straight path across a field more or less doubled in length, with sharp almost blind turns at the corners. Total shit. I think they did it in winter likely when people weren’t passing in any numbers to see the scrappy bit of paper stapled to a telegraph pole announcing it or whatever, so no organised opposition happened. When they started building I just assumed it was a temporary diversion, but no, it’s forever. Cunts.

edit: added screen grab from google, you can see where path went from bottom right to top left.

 

[campanula]

Grief, I want to put a storage shed in the wood but cos other 'landowners' (please don't judge me) have behaved badly, I have to apply for PP and have been told I am not likely to get it...while afaics, various developers have been running amok all over this 'National Park'. Have no idea how to proceed. Have been told my wood now comes under some weird local legislation. I am talking about a 3m x 3m wooden shed FFS.