A very large illuminated advertisement hoarding was erected locally
without planning permission. After retrospective planning applications
and appeals were refused, the council eventually issued enforcement
notices against both the land owner and the advertising company, and
these passed the due date.
Before the council could take action to remove the structure itself,
the sign was sold to a different company who have now made a fresh
retrospective application, no doubt to be followed by appeals.
My question is, will the council have to go through the whole process
again due to the change of owner, or does the removal order still
stand? As far as I know, the land owner has not changed.
The council will of course have their own legal advice, but they don't
seem to do anything without pressure from residents and we want to
know what their obligations are.

wrote in
:

A very large illuminated advertisement hoarding was erected locally
without planning permission. After retrospective planning applications
and appeals were refused, the council eventually issued enforcement
notices against both the land owner and the advertising company, and
these passed the due date.
Before the council could take action to remove the structure itself,
the sign was sold to a different company who have now made a fresh
retrospective application, no doubt to be followed by appeals.
My question is, will the council have to go through the whole process
again due to the change of owner, or does the removal order still
stand? As far as I know, the land owner has not changed.
The council will of course have their own legal advice, but they don't
seem to do anything without pressure from residents and we want to
know what their obligations are.


This is all to common. Similar events took place near my home. A public
house erected a raised wooden deck, with awnings, tables and chairs, in
its "garden" - only a few feet from a neighbour's bedroom window. Of
course it didn't have planning permission and only applied for
retrospective consent after the neighbours complained to the Council.

The consent was refused and the decking removed.

But within weeks the leaseholder changed, the decking was rebuilt, almost
identiacal and with the same wood, with some minor alterations, and
retrospective planning permission applied for.

This time consent was given - despite further complaints from the local
people.

Planning Laws were designed to protect those with influence - not the
public.


--
gbh
gbh04 is a spamtrap - all post is deleted at server

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:05:06 +0100, GBH wrote:

Planning Laws were designed to protect those with influence - not the
public.

Unfortunately you are correct. It's about time that planning laws
were reformed.

For one thing it seems very one-sided to allow the applicant to appeal
but not allow objectors the same rights.

I remember, when applying for planning permission for a house
extension, the planners insisted on several petty modifications to the
design. This ended up with the extension smaller, uglier and more
expensive to build than the original design.

And yet a property developer was allowed to demolish a house nearby
and build several ugly boxes in it's place, despite numerous
objections.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Mark wrote in
:

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:05:06 +0100, GBH wrote:

Planning Laws were designed to protect those with influence - not the
public.

Unfortunately you are correct. It's about time that planning laws
were reformed.

For one thing it seems very one-sided to allow the applicant to appeal
but not allow objectors the same rights.

I remember, when applying for planning permission for a house
extension, the planners insisted on several petty modifications to the
design. This ended up with the extension smaller, uglier and more
expensive to build than the original design.

And yet a property developer was allowed to demolish a house nearby
and build several ugly boxes in it's place, despite numerous
objections.


I believe that nearly all senior local authority planners are freemasons,
as are most planning consultants employed by developers. Our towns and
cities are the result.

--
gbh
gbh04 is a spamtrap - all post is deleted at server

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:45:05 +0100, GBH wrote:

I believe that nearly all senior local authority planners are freemasons,
as are most planning consultants employed by developers. Our towns and
cities are the result.

But does anyone have an answer to my question please?

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:05:06 +0100, GBH wrote:

Planning Laws were designed to protect those with influence - not the
public.

Unfortunately you are correct. It's about time that planning laws
were reformed.

I entirely agree. Sadly though, I suspect that government intention is to
revise the laws in the other direction, on the basis of making it easier to
accommodate the steadily increasing population.

Les.