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.

Cheers
Richard

js.b1 wrote:

On Dec 7, 11:53*am, Chris J Dixon wrote:
js.b1 wrote:
Pensions work fine when there is direct competition to essentially
cripple fees.

Was this intended for somewhere else?

No it was in response to BA, BT, Royal Mail etc all struggling with
pension costs.

Ah!

It didn't appear at that point in the thread, and there was no
quoted text to see what you were responding to.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On 7 Dec, 10:52, John Rumm wrote:

If its done by an elected body, then you have to accept that in a
democratic system your voice may not be heard if your view is in the
minority. However with a system as suggested here, you could at least
join the local "neighbourhood" and inject your own input.

If they were talking about giving these powers to Parish Councils, I
wouldn't be keen, but it would be preferable to having the same bunch
of busybodies setting policy in an unelected unaccountable way.

Much will hinge on who they are accountable to, and what checks and
controls are in place.

This is interesting, because I've just had a discussion in the office
about the kind of people who leave a meeting, convinced that there is
a consensus for their view, simply because they have been talking at
and over people for long enough that nobody can be bothered to get
into a fight ;-) Clearly this also happens in elected bodies, but at
least there are, at one remove, electors who can express their view
withour being browbeaten.

Cheers
Richard

On 7 Dec, 13:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm all for localisation (which Conservative administrations during
the 1980s did their best to stamp out), but it should be democratic
localisation. In a democracy, everyone gets a vote regardless of
status, wealth or temperament.

then get off yer ass and make it happen that way.
The tories have said 'run yor own communities'

It does happen that way. We vote for our elected representatives, and
give them money to employ or contract people to empty the bins, do the
building inspections, and so on. We help out with as much in the
village as we can, but unlike people with more time on their hands I
am mostly travelling to work, working and running a household. People
with more time and flexibility are welcome to take on more
responsibility, but I reserve the right to vote for them, or not.

Cheers
Richard

On 7 Dec, 13:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No, it's not their right, because we also beloing to wider
communities, with wider commmunity rules and laws. Otherwise
eventually you'll have the local bullies deciding not only that you
can't extend your home or put up a wind turbine, but determining the
kind of people allowed to live there - after all, what business does
big government have in making race equality laws, if a local cumminity
decides it doesn't want black people living there? That's where this
fake localism leads.

Oddly, I believe its peoples' right to try to do even that.

I've been across the USA. certain places you don't even want to have
long hair. You certainly wouldn't want to be gay.

If that's the way they want it that's fine.

It's to keep people like you in check that I believe in democracy ;-)

Cheers
Richard

geraldthehamster wrote:
On 7 Dec, 13:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No, it's not their right, because we also beloing to wider
communities, with wider commmunity rules and laws. Otherwise
eventually you'll have the local bullies deciding not only that you
can't extend your home or put up a wind turbine, but determining the
kind of people allowed to live there - after all, what business does
big government have in making race equality laws, if a local cumminity
decides it doesn't want black people living there? That's where this
fake localism leads.
Oddly, I believe its peoples' right to try to do even that.

I've been across the USA. certain places you don't even want to have
long hair. You certainly wouldn't want to be gay.

If that's the way they want it that's fine.

It's to keep people like you in check that I believe in democracy ;-)


I note you snipped the erst where I said that there has to be a balance,
BUT I don't like C-Guv imposing a homogeneous lifestyle and attitude
across disparate environments.

Much suburban and urban morality is all about living at high population
definitions: it is irrelevant interference when in lower density areas.

I.e if one person ****s in the woods, who cares. If 50,000 **** in the
streets, everybody cares.

If I carry a loaded but broken shotgun across a highland moor, who
cares? If I carry it down Downing street, I am in trouble. ;-)

I.e there has to be space for local rules for local places. the great
arrogance of Nu Laber was to impose suburban, urban and industrial
values and indeed to attempt to create suburbia, or industrial areas,
out of any piece of land that wasn't covered in social security scroungers.


Interference by C-Guv is LESS fair as it takes no account of local
conditions. One size does not fit all. That's the Great Mistake.

The Great Left Experiment was to extend legal and social guidelines from
the centre outwards: Its been shown to not be efficient. The next great
experiment is to shrink government inwards, and see where it works and
where it does not.


Cheers
Richard

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.


Cheers
Richard

geraldthehamster wrote:

Off the top of my head it's one year for Building Control, four years
for Planning if the work was done without permission, and ten years if
a Planning condition was not met.

What kind of condition is meant here? Does it mean a condition imposed
when planning permission was obtained, or does it also include a condition
which would have been imposed if planning permision had been obtained?

If only the former, this would be a good incentive to go ahead without
permission, since then you'd be in the clear after only 4 years instead
of sitting biting your nails for 10.

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

On 07/12/2010 22:07, John Rumm wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...urt-rules.html



Incredible! Yet these are the kind of people who would be up in arms
(rightly) if a bunch of pikeys built homes for themselves without
planning permission.

Another Dave

On 08/12/10 09:25, Another Dave wrote:
On 07/12/2010 22:07, John Rumm wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...urt-rules.html




Incredible! Yet these are the kind of people who would be up in arms
(rightly) if a bunch of pikeys built homes for themselves without
planning permission.

Another Dave

Except his building actually looks pretty.

--
Tim Watts

On 8 Dec, 10:05, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/12/10 09:25, Another Dave wrote:

On 07/12/2010 22:07, John Rumm wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-secret-castle...

Incredible! Yet these are the kind of people who would be up in arms
(rightly) if a bunch of pikeys built homes for themselves without
planning permission.

Another Dave

Except his building actually looks pretty.

--
Tim Watts

I've just found it on Google Maps. Search for RH1 5QL, look up the
screen and you'll find it.

It's not the most tasteful of buildings, but you'd do more to enhance
the countryside by demolishing the agricultural and industrial
dilapidation that surrounds it.

Cheers
Richard

On Dec 8, 10:35*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

*"tim...." wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
The article said he was going to appeal - I thought he's done the House of
Lords (or Supreme Court, whatever) - I think the next stage was the Euro
Courts.

Which is (was) going to get him absolutely nowhere.

The case was lost on the "narrow" legal point that the definition of
"completion" of the property was the date that the scaffolding came down.

On 9 Dec, 18:32, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*geraldthehamster wrote:
On 9 Dec, 04:00, John Rumm wrote:
On 08/12/2010 22:35, Tim Streater wrote:
Did Building Control pass it? If so, how come they didn't check with
Planning when they saw the bales of straw around it?

They probably figured its not their problem...
If he didn't want Planning to know, I'd be highly surprised if he had
risked involving Building Control, as the lesser of the two evils.
Building Control are only ever likely to want something demolished if
it's dangerous, whereas Planning want it knocked down because it's
there...

So when did he get it signed off by BC? If he didn't, then I don't see
how it could have been considered "finished" anyway.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689

Building Control have enforcement powers for 12 months after work is
"finished", which suggests there is a definition of "finished" that is
independent of Building Control.

The crappy lean-to utility room outside my kitchen has been there
since the 1960s and is clearly finished, though I doubt anyone
resembling a BCO has ever seen it.

Cheers
Richard

On 13 Dec, 10:48, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*geraldthehamster wrote:
On 9 Dec, 18:32, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
So when did he get it signed off by BC? If he didn't, then I don't see
how it could have been considered "finished" anyway.
Building Control have enforcement powers for 12 months after work is
"finished", which suggests there is a definition of "finished" that is
independent of Building Control.

Mmmm. Yes, OK, that makes sense. Perhaps it's the certificate of
practical completion then (not really sure what that is, but I did get
one once).

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689

Possibly my utility room might have had a Certificate of Impractically
Cobbled Together. The bloke was a joiner as well.

Cheers
Richard