Proposed changes to permitted development?

[js.b1]

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

They could always get Obama to take them over and tear up the bond holders rights etc as happened with Government Motors. Big government does not work, even worse it is too expensive, too easily manipulated by vested interests. The civil service top-levels need simply deleting, thinning down. Property & Estate Managers elevated under Nulabour to far above 100k + bonus + expenses + pension + 911 or S6; public sector trades pay for security - not the economy into a toilet. BT in particular still believes it is the last vestige of the empire with hereditary birthright.

[geraldthehamster]

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

Cheers Richard

[Chris J Dixon]

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

[geraldthehamster]

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

[geraldthehamster]

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

[geraldthehamster]

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

Cheers Richard

[John Rumm]

And the limitation on planning related action is something like 4 years from completion rather than the typical one or two years for building regs IIRC.

[Tim Streater]

That's an expensive option for the council to pursue - one of the reasons it doesn't happen *that* often. No, make the original transgressor liable for all costs incurred - that would concentrate their minds.

I had the impression that in California, at least, they're more robust. Dozers go in and you get the bill.

[The Natural Philosopher]

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

[Ronald Raygun]

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.

[geraldthehamster]

:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D\

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D/- Hide quoted text -

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.

Cheers Richard

[geraldthehamster]

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:

you can check the regulations easily enough.

Cheers Richard

[John Rumm]

BCOs will usually try and cajole rectification rather than demand it via legal process. They are also concerned with whether the place meets the regs rather than whether its allowed at all. So a place built to regs but without permission would leave the building control department with no avenue of attack.

Excuse the source, but:

a quote from:

"In the year 2005/06, planning authorities throughout Britain issued a total of 5,794 "enforcement actions" against illegally built properties. "

[Another Dave]

>

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

[Tim Watts]

>>>>>

Except his building actually looks pretty.

[geraldthehamster]

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D\

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D/- Hide quoted text -

I can't see anything on the Internewt to suggest that the chap who built the castle has actually demolished it yet ... I wonder how loing that one will run.

Cheers Richard

[Tim Watts]

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.

[geraldthehamster]

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

[tim....]

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.

The Euro court is not going to waste its time with such trivia.

tim

[Tim Streater]

Did Building Control pass it? If so, how come they didn't check with Planning when they saw the bales of straw around it?