On 7 Dec, 18:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
geraldthehamster wrote:
On 6 Dec, 19:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

The other thing that makes planning a bit farcical at the moment is that
there are few sanctions if someone breaks the rules. In our old village
years ago someone had PP for a 4-bed house, built it taller and with
7-beds (extras in the roof). Has higher-up windows that then overlooked
the neighbour.
Builder then sells, and in doing so it's not his responsibility any
more. Buyer gets the house cheaper and just applies for retrospective,
gets it with minor adjustments needed. Turns out the builder had
previous in this regard.
Seems to me the rules ought to be that the original transgressor should
stay responsible.
+100

Building regs have the ultimate sanction that can force complete demolition.

Not so planning.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's wrongs - plenty of building have been taken down after
demoltion orders issued because they didn't have planning permission.

really? can you cite some examples..I thought it was almost always
building regs.

Are you claiming that Planning don't have that sanction (your first
assertion), or that they *almost* don't (your second)?

Anyway, they do. Here's a random example found after 10 seconds of
Googling:

http://tinyurl.com/24ttsc3

But you can check the regulations easily enough.

Cheers
Richard