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.

beginner@notmyaddress.com wrote in 
news:8i2gb4h6t7deun98eggmddbomdm6f1td4e@4ax.com:

> 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 
news:dfinb4dthcfg1pbksg248rpokivve6511e@4ax.com:

> 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

"Mark"  wrote in message 
news:dfinb4dthcfg1pbksg248rpokivve6511e@4ax.com...
> 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.

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?