My father's rural (small quiet village) property adjoins some land
that is owned by a millionaire. Earlier this year said millionaire
applied for planning permission to build some warehouses and was
refused. A couple of dozen people in the village also complained to
the council.

Despite being refused planning permission, said millionaire is still
going ahead and preparing the foundations for his proposed warehouses.

Various people, including my father, have spoken to the council about
this latest development but to no avail. They seem unprepared to do
anything.

This does make me wonder if said millionaire is greasing some palms
somewhere at the local council, or is he just trying it on in the hope
that the council will relent and allow him to build his warehouses ?
Perhaps he is trying to utilise some legal loopholes ?

Can anything else be done to stop said millionaire in his tracks ?

No doubt if 'joe bloggs' tried this on he would be stopped in no time
at all.

"mj" wrote in message
...
My father's rural (small quiet village) property adjoins some land
that is owned by a millionaire. Earlier this year said millionaire
applied for planning permission to build some warehouses and was
refused. A couple of dozen people in the village also complained to
the council.

Despite being refused planning permission, said millionaire is still
going ahead and preparing the foundations for his proposed warehouses.

Various people, including my father, have spoken to the council about
this latest development but to no avail. They seem unprepared to do
anything.

This does make me wonder if said millionaire is greasing some palms
somewhere at the local council, or is he just trying it on in the hope
that the council will relent and allow him to build his warehouses ?
Perhaps he is trying to utilise some legal loopholes ?

Can anything else be done to stop said millionaire in his tracks ?


1. Until the building appears, contrary to planning, there is nothing the
council can do. If said millionaire has said he is going to appeal the
decision, then they won't do anything until that's settled. They can serve
an order to demolish after this time.

2. Palm greasing is usually all above board and done by a section 106
agreement, in the form of improving local roads, drains and infrastructure.

bland

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:16:33 GMT, (mj) wrote:

My father's rural (small quiet village) property adjoins some land
that is owned by a millionaire. Earlier this year said millionaire
applied for planning permission to build some warehouses and was
refused. A couple of dozen people in the village also complained to
the council.

Despite being refused planning permission, said millionaire is still
going ahead and preparing the foundations for his proposed warehouses.

Various people, including my father, have spoken to the council about
this latest development but to no avail. They seem unprepared to do
anything.

This does make me wonder if said millionaire is greasing some palms
somewhere at the local council, or is he just trying it on in the hope
that the council will relent and allow him to build his warehouses ?
Perhaps he is trying to utilise some legal loopholes ?

Can anything else be done to stop said millionaire in his tracks ?

No doubt if 'joe bloggs' tried this on he would be stopped in no time
at all.

Check to see if local MP is interested in taking it up - unless they
both go to the same lodge of course.

Escalate in writing to local councillors and senior management in
council.

Form a residents association and involve the press. Research the
press to see who on the editorial staff is interested in making
themselves a hero - even if it is a spotty 18 year old. Write the
story for them.

Raise a small amount of money to cover costs.

Engage a solicitor to write to the council as well asking them to
justify their inaction. Even more effective if done on behalf of
residents association.

Check whether a Building Control application has been made.

Once you raise the profile and put a spotlight on the officers in the
planning department and raise their level of discomfort they will have
to act.

However, do try to make sure that the officers have a way out to save
face if you can.

Some years ago I was involved in organising a group of this type to
counter a proposed roadway into a local park. The proposed location
was completely inappropriate for traffic reasons and would have
threatened an area of the park used for small children to play.

This case was an uphill struggle because the developer was the parks
department of the same council.

We used all of the techniques above and some others:

- The routing of the proposed road was between rows of lime trees. We
contacted a professor at the local university who was prepared to
write to the effect that there was a risk to the trees through
possible root damage.

- The routing of the proposed road was within a designated distance of
(what was then) a motorway. Different planning procedures involving
central government apply (applied). As it happened, there is a
railway line in between, but that is not mentioned in the legislation.
The council hadn't done their homework.

Eventually, the council, both departments, were forced into attending
a public meeting. We organised, solicitor, local press, councillors,
MP and local TV to attend and made sure that the council officers were
aware of who had been invited.

The meeting happened. The planning officers and parks department
came along with a joint statement and new proposals and abandoning the
original plan. Having produced a much better solution all round,
including a better arrangement for the facility for which they were
providing access, they made themselves heros.

We all went to the pub afterwards and parted friends.

So I think that the approach is to decide up front how much effort and
money you are willing to spend and then turn up the heat until the
desired outcome is achieved.







--

..andy

Andy Hall wrote:

Snipped waste of time.

Obtain access to said offender's racehorse.

Cut off said racehorse's head.

Put said head in bed of said offender.

Escalate as required.

"mj" wrote in message
...
..
Despite being refused planning permission, said millionaire is still
going ahead and preparing the foundations for his proposed warehouses.
...

Until he has built a building without permission, he hasn't done anything
wrong. Once it is built, _then_ report it and then he will have to take it
down. I would assume also that building regs are not getting involved at
this stage, so perhaps they will make him take the building down to inspect
the foundations, even if he does get retrospective planning permission.

-- JJ

Weatherlawyer wrote:

Obtain access to said offender's racehorse.

Cut off said racehorse's head.

Reciprocating saw perhaps?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Obtain access to said offender's racehorse.

Cut off said racehorse's head.

Reciprocating saw perhaps?

As long as it's not a Scorpio...

--
*When did my wild oats turn to prunes and all bran?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Blueyonder wrote:

Until he has built a building without permission, he hasn't done anything

Could he be claiming that it is an agricultural building? I don't think
(don't know) these are subject to planning permission. Presumably the
land would then have to be designated as farm land. He probably has
access to many costly & devious advisors.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:41:34 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Obtain access to said offender's racehorse.

Cut off said racehorse's head.

Reciprocating saw perhaps?

As long as it's not a Scorpio...


Not very likely. It would jam and catch fire first.


--

..andy

Until he has built a building without permission, he hasn't done anything

Could he be claiming that it is an agricultural building? I don't think
(don't know) these are subject to planning permission. Presumably the
land would then have to be designated as farm land.

Agricultural buildings are subject to planning permission and have been for
many years.

Peter Crosland

The message .com
from "Aidan" contains these words:

Until he has built a building without permission, he hasn't done anything

Could he be claiming that it is an agricultural building? I don't think
(don't know) these are subject to planning permission. Presumably the
land would then have to be designated as farm land. He probably has
access to many costly & devious advisors.

I think most agricultural buildings of any size would need planning
permission now but the route my neighbour took for a new barn was much
easier than the hoops those putting up domestic buildings have to jump
through.

I can't recall all the detail but basically all he had to do was to give
a certain period of notice and if the Council didn't object he could go
ahead with his building. There were several caveats including the
obvious one that it had to be an agricultural building. The other 2 that
I can remember were that he had to have a certain amount of land (10
hectare perhaps or is that the amount of land you need before you can
get on the single payment gravy train?) and the barn had to be at least
a certain distance (100m probably) away for any dwelling other than his
own.

Building control and planning are 2 separate issues so is there anything
to stop the landowner either getting BC consent or putting in a building
notice to keep within that part of the law? (Assuming the buildings in
question are subject to building control.)

--
Roger Chapman

Until he has built a building without permission, he hasn't done
anything

Could he be claiming that it is an agricultural building? I don't think
(don't know) these are subject to planning permission. Presumably the
land would then have to be designated as farm land. He probably has
access to many costly & devious advisors.

I think most agricultural buildings of any size would need planning
permission now but the route my neighbour took for a new barn was much
easier than the hoops those putting up domestic buildings have to jump
through.

I can't recall all the detail but basically all he had to do was to give
a certain period of notice and if the Council didn't object he could go
ahead with his building. There were several caveats including the
obvious one that it had to be an agricultural building. The other 2 that
I can remember were that he had to have a certain amount of land (10
hectare perhaps or is that the amount of land you need before you can
get on the single payment gravy train?) and the barn had to be at least
a certain distance (100m probably) away for any dwelling other than his
own.

The permitted developement rights for agricultural buildings are of course
different from those for other types. Nevertheless they do still apply.


Building control and planning are 2 separate issues so is there anything
to stop the landowner either getting BC consent or putting in a building
notice to keep within that part of the law? (Assuming the buildings in
question are subject to building control.)


Building control would unlikely to give consent if they knew there was no
planning permission. Not always the case but they are not doing their job
very well if they don't liase with thier colleagues IMHO.


Peter Crosland

Andy Hall wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:41:34 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Obtain access to said offender's racehorse.

Cut off said racehorse's head.

Reciprocating saw perhaps?

As long as it's not a Scorpio...


Not very likely. It would jam and catch fire first.

simpsons
A man sneaks into a stables at night, and plugs in his Scorpio.

Climbing into the stall, he applies it to the horses neck.
The horse wonders what the itching sensation is for several moments, before
bursting into flames.
/simpsoms

The message
from "Peter Crosland" contains these words:

I think most agricultural buildings of any size would need planning
permission now but the route my neighbour took for a new barn was much
easier than the hoops those putting up domestic buildings have to jump
through.

I can't recall all the detail but basically all he had to do was to give
a certain period of notice and if the Council didn't object he could go
ahead with his building. There were several caveats including the
obvious one that it had to be an agricultural building. The other 2 that
I can remember were that he had to have a certain amount of land (10
hectare perhaps or is that the amount of land you need before you can
get on the single payment gravy train?) and the barn had to be at least
a certain distance (100m probably) away for any dwelling other than his
own.

The permitted developement rights for agricultural buildings are of course
different from those for other types. Nevertheless they do still apply.

Perhaps but the above was about a short route to planning consent that
is not available on domenstic builds.

--
Roger Chapman

Blueyonder wrote:
"mj" wrote in message
...
..
Despite being refused planning permission, said millionaire is still
going ahead and preparing the foundations for his proposed warehouses.
...

Until he has built a building without permission, he hasn't done anything
wrong. Once it is built, _then_ report it and then he will have to take it
down. I would assume also that building regs are not getting involved at
this stage, so perhaps they will make him take the building down to inspect
the foundations, even if he does get retrospective planning permission.

-- JJ

A foundation is still 'development' under the TCPA 1990 and will
require planning permission. It is also relevent works under the
Building Act and will require an application too.

dg

An application that meets the technical requirements of the Building
Regulations has to be approved. That is the law.

Planning approval is completely separate and can not influence building
control and vice versa.

dg

"dg" wrote in message
oups.com...

An application that meets the technical requirements of the Building
Regulations has to be approved. That is the law.

Approved of what?

Planning approval is completely separate and can not influence building
control and vice versa.

dg

Approved as in, you apply for approval with submitted drawings and
specification and these are approved (ie they have beed checked and
found to conform to the relevant sections of the building regs.

dg

On 3 Dec 2005 13:43:49 -0800, "dg" wrote:


Blueyonder wrote:
"mj" wrote in message
...
..
Despite being refused planning permission, said millionaire is still
going ahead and preparing the foundations for his proposed warehouses.
...

Until he has built a building without permission, he hasn't done anything
wrong. Once it is built, _then_ report it and then he will have to take it
down. I would assume also that building regs are not getting involved at
this stage, so perhaps they will make him take the building down to inspect
the foundations, even if he does get retrospective planning permission.

-- JJ

A foundation is still 'development' under the TCPA 1990

True

and will
require planning permission.

Not necessarily.

Have a look here :-
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950418_en_4.htm
Part 1 Class F.

If one is so inclined, it's possible to argue that the "foundations"
are, in fact a "hard-standing" and therefore exempt.

The local planners may see things differently, get ****ed off and be
as awkward as possible but, in my experience, those who become
millionaires don't worry about such niceties.

It is also relevent works under the
Building Act and will require an application too.

Again, I'm not sure that's true. The "foundations" are just a hole in
the ground filled with concrete *until* walls are built on them.

Are concrete-filled holes subject to building regs ?

Cheers,

John

John Anderton wrote:
On 3 Dec 2005 13:43:49 -0800, "dg" wrote:


Blueyonder wrote:

"mj" wrote in message
...

..
Despite being refused planning permission, said millionaire is still
going ahead and preparing the foundations for his proposed warehouses.
...

Until he has built a building without permission, he hasn't done anything
wrong. Once it is built, _then_ report it and then he will have to take it
down. I would assume also that building regs are not getting involved at
this stage, so perhaps they will make him take the building down to inspect
the foundations, even if he does get retrospective planning permission.

-- JJ

A foundation is still 'development' under the TCPA 1990


True


and will
require planning permission.


Not necessarily.

Have a look here :-
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950418_en_4.htm
Part 1 Class F.

If one is so inclined, it's possible to argue that the "foundations"
are, in fact a "hard-standing" and therefore exempt.

The local planners may see things differently, get ****ed off and be
as awkward as possible but, in my experience, those who become
millionaires don't worry about such niceties.


It is also relevent works under the
Building Act and will require an application too.


Again, I'm not sure that's true. The "foundations" are just a hole in
the ground filled with concrete *until* walls are built on them.

Are concrete-filled holes subject to building regs ?

Cheers,

John
Wake up all, have you not yet realised the extent of corruption in this
country, both at national level and local. Over and over you see Mr
Ordinary being bulked, though Mr Rich gets it all! Nothings changed,
except it used to be the landed gentry versus the peasants.

--
Please do not reply to this Email address
All Emails are deleted upon receipt.

[quote=Andy Hall]On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:16:33 GMT, (mj) wrote:
[color=blue]

Despite being refused planning permission, said millionaire is still
going ahead and preparing the foundations for his proposed warehouses.


Check to see if local MP is interested in taking it up - unless they
both go to the same lodge of course.

Escalate in writing to local councillors and senior management in
council.

Form a residents association and involve the press. Research the
press to see who on the editorial staff is interested in making
themselves a hero - even if it is a spotty 18 year old. Write the
story for them.

Raise a small amount of money to cover costs.

For me this is an impressive and sensible reply, unlike stuff about the decapitation of equestrian talismen and such like day dreaming by the incapable. Andy you know the ropes and just how the local press are really gagging for it - free copy that is.

It is not a question of how much money this malefactor has. Maybe I have got a heap too but that does not make us a part a moneyed mafia who want to ride rough-shod over the laws of decency because they belong to the club. I have not lived in the country for decades but still the prospect of building industrial buildings in the midst of England's green and pleasant is utterly abhorrent.

When something this grotesque rears its head you are really not at the mercy of the fates. Don't think - what can I do ? Follow Andy's advice and get stuck in there. If you can write good enough copy you can topple Tony Blair - bit of a rocking stone these days anyway.

Need a small contribution - get in touch with me.