"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...

"dmc" wrote in message
...
In article ,
BigWallop wrote:

... Even if the dildo was of a size exempt from
planning
permission, the owner would held responsible for their actions in
building
something which may offend others.

a prize for the first person to ring their planning office and ask what
is the largest dildo that would be except from planning permission :-)

Darren


This was a ~30 storey tower hotel planned at the rear of the Free Trade
Hall
in Manchester (built on the site of the Peterloo massacre). It was round,
tall, partly finished in [pink?] granite, would stick out above a listed
building and even had a conical top... The plan was, thank goodness,
eventually shelved and the tower was never erected. The Council meeting
about it was a nightmare of puns and double entendres, pretty much like
this
post.



The point of the post was someone saying they had no rights of objection in
a neighbour building unsightly things around their property, where in fact,
they have all the rights due to them in preventing this from happening if
only they knew how to go about it.

Because a building is exempt from planning permissions due to size and
structure, it will never be exempt from basic right to light and obstruction
of privacy regulations. So the point of my outrageous example was to put
SuperMooCow on track in asking their local authority to step in and see what
can be done. That's what we all pay rates and taxes for.