On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:56:59 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:51:14 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

The planners can make it a condition if they wish. You then have the
right of appeal to an independent inspector. Mind you that will
probably
be rejected.


But worth doing, just to upset them!


Not half as much as it will upset the appellant if the appeal fails and
the
council, quite rightly, ask costs and get them!

Peter Crosland


Why "quite rightly"?

These people are jobsworths who abuse their position and restrict the
freedom of the very people who pay their salaries.

This is not to say that there does not need to be sensible planning
control to prevent monstrosities, but quite often these people in
planning departments exceed the intent of the legislation and behave
arbitrarily.

It would be worth the investment to put them through the wringer on
the hope that they are slapped down.

Are you going to do it, Andy?

Reminds me of belling the cat. I seem to be all nostalgic tonight ... but
not so much that I don't agree with Peter.


This one isn't likely to affect me since I don't live in a
conservation area.


However, in the past, I have successfully mounted a campaign against
the abuse of power by a planning department regarding building of an
unsuitably located access road to a sports stadium in a park owned by
said council.

Essentially, they were acting as judge and jury in their own cause and
without proper consultation with those likely to be affected by the
works.

Unfortunately for them, several departments screwed up.

- They didn't account for the fact that the road was to be built
within a specified distance of what was then a motorway. As it
happened, the motorway was elevated and the other side of a railway
line, but certainly at the time, the legislation was not specific. It
would have required an application to the Secretary of State.

- The road was to run through an avenue of protected lime trees. We
approached a professor of botany at the local university who was
prepared to go on record that it was likely that the excavations and
traffic would damage the roots and endanger the trees.

- They didn't carry out a proper traffic census.


...... and so on.

Money was raised, a solicitor engaged, plus friendly reporters from
the local newspapers and TV station. Councillors and the local MP
were brought on board.

A public meeting was arranged.

An alternative plan was put together and given to the jobsworths a few
days before the meeting.

They came along and pretty much immediately agreed to the alternative
proposal.


So it is possible to stop this ridiculous abuse of power. It's a
matter of having the will and presenting the case properly.
Also, a way for the jobsworths to save face is helpful.

Considering the case of the lady in Oxfordshire, while I don't
particularly like the thought of genuine heritage items being replaced
with crap, she did so with something that was convincing enough for TV
use so can't have been a total monstrosity.

Given that replacement with a lighter door allows her to maintain her
independence in her house (not anybody else's house), I think that
this should over-ride the conservation issue.

The council didn't *have* to make an issue out of it, but could have
acted with common sense and a degree of compassion.

A sensible solution would have been for the original door to have been
stored somewhere to be reinstalled at some date in the future when she
no longer needs the house.

It seems that the magistrate probably agreed, since the fine was only
£300.



--

..andy