"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:56:59 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:



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?


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

You could take up arms on behalf of the lady if you felt so strongly about
it.


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.

I've done something similar but it's not the same thing at all as the case
under discussion. Many of thesedevelopments are ultimately passed by
national government. They're certainly often oiled by money. They can still
be opposed and changed but they're not planned by local government officers.

....

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.

Has it ever occurred to you that some people might be calling YOU a
'jobsworth'? It all depends on where you're standing.

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.

Oh well, if it's OK for TV it MUST be good!

Look, she chose to live in a conservation area, she must have known and
accepted the restrictions. If she had polio she hasn't recently contracted
it.

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.

No, there were, according to the report, other issues than a lightweight
door.

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

And done the same for all the other abuses in the area? A line has to be
drawn - and kept to.

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.

Or it could be because there are pre-determined penalites for offences ...

I don't live in a conservation area but one starts at the other side of the
street and I've been very pleased that restrictions have been enforced in
that area otherwise we'd now be overlooked by a very high building and no
trees.

I firmly believe that, on the whole, planning is going the right way.
Nothing will ever be perfect and some individuals might not like
restrictions but they have a choice, they can move to a nice new estate.

Mary