Jump to content
Wanderers Ways - passion not fashion

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have no issue with houses being built there, by the way, I think there’s a good amount of green eye going on. My issue is that the builder took the piss and that cannot go unpunished just becau

Cha-ching for some councillors, then.

They can still use the original passed plans, which include renovations on the farm house that they knocked down. 

35 minutes ago, bolton_blondie said:

If I had that kind of money to spend on a house I sure as hell wouldn't want my neighbours that close. Antisocial bastard that I am. 

Exactly this. Don't get me wrong, i get on great with my neighbours, but if i had the money i'd probably choose to live somewhere with no neighbours within 500 yards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Supporter
1 hour ago, Elson said:

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/19160496.live-planning-inquiry-grundy-fold-mansions-begins/
 

So what we thinking, I would love to see them all knocked down but can’t see it.

I want them knocking down because  of the builder who thought he’d just be able to give a backhander to the council after he knowingly ignored to submitted plans.

Some of the people who’d bought the houses knew what was going on too, so are complicit.

Regardless of all that, he’s left loads of trades unpaid and is an arrogant fucker.

Alledgedly. Of coursex

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Spider said:

I want them knocking down because  of the builder who thought he’d just be able to give a backhander to the council after he knowingly ignored to submitted plans.

Some of the people who’d bought the houses knew what was going on too, so are complicit.

Regardless of all that, he’s left loads of trades unpaid and is an arrogant fucker.

Alledgedly. Of coursex

Would that be the same builder who owns one of the offending houses by any chance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel sorry for the people that bought homes. It’s a right shitter.

Id let it go as they look alright and I don’t think they swallow up the land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a dangerous precedent if he's allowed to get away with it.  I'm not too fussed on the decision though so long as there's no impact on the public purse.  The council cant always afford to risk an appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Supporter
1 minute ago, Duck Egg said:

It's a dangerous precedent if he's allowed to get away with it.  I'm not too fussed on the decision though so long as there's no impact on the public purse.  The council cant always afford to risk an appeal.

They don't get away with anything if they fined and punished adequately. Wont do it again if no profit.

Not sure what the law permits as punishment but purely from a pragmatic/environmental point of view, leaving them is better than demolition and rebuild.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Built them too big. Whoever made the decision to do that took a liberty. If they had built them the right size then folk would have been in them years ago.

 

If I was living in the row of houses facing the site then I wouldn't have been happy that my view had been polluted by these houses. And bigger than planned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Supporter
2 minutes ago, Underpants said:

Built them too big. Whoever made the decision to do that took a liberty. If they had built them the right size then folk would have been in them years ago.

 

If I was living in the row of houses facing the site then I wouldn't have been happy that my view had been polluted by these houses. And bigger than planned.

We know all that. In this case it doesn't really impinge on neighbours, so that factor doesn't come into it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a strange submission to an enquiry, "enforcement notice issued by the council to demolish the homes was excessive and too harsh to remedy any breach in planning regulations" 

The law is clear on what grounds you can appeal an enforcement notice and the only one they can be thinking about is that "that the steps required by the notice to be taken, or the activities required by the notice to cease, exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach;" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

We know all that. In this case it doesn't really impinge on neighbours, so that factor doesn't come into it.

 

I've spoke to the one of the people facing these illegal houses. It was a factor for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Building on the land as agreed would of been fine as was a building (farm) before.

But to build something not in the plots agreed and in one case 33% bigger if I was in one of those houses next to Bob Smithy I would be unhappy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nowack said:

Seems a strange submission to an enquiry, "enforcement notice issued by the council to demolish the homes was excessive and too harsh to remedy any breach in planning regulations" 

The law is clear on what grounds you can appeal an enforcement notice and the only one they can be thinking about is that "that the steps required by the notice to be taken, or the activities required by the notice to cease, exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach;" 

Depends if they are trying to argue that there is a better solution than demolition, then in their eyes the enforcement notice was excessive

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
12 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

They have no right to a view

Indeed. I once scored at Greenmount for my lad’s U13 game. Alongside me was the home scorer. During a lull in play I commented on the wind turbines on the hills. Pointing out that they look majestic and ‘arty’. 
I thought he was about to shove his pencil up my nose! Apparently, he had a picture window in his bedroom where he used to sit with his Sunday morning brew and just stare. 
Well, shall we change the subject then? 😀

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Allow the houses to stay but Bolton Council arranges a free raffle for anyone with a Bolton postcode.

Obviously Cliff Morris will “win” one so everyone else must have him as a neighbour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Depends if they are trying to argue that there is a better solution than demolition, then in their eyes the enforcement notice was excessive

The argument on these terms is for example you built it too high and therefore to remedy the breach you take it down a few courses and not demolish the whole thing as ordered. That doesn`t seem applicable in this case.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that the development was supposed to be courtyard style, not what I'm seeing in the pictures.

Amazing that people can invest the thick end of a million without fully checking the planning approvals, I thought this would have been automatic with every conveyancing practice, they always bang on about FENSA stuff and HETAS etc. etc.

There is a precedent over here, a bloke I know lost his cushy number with a Lincoln house builder when he built a row of new houses in town 1 metre forward of the building line and they had to come down, thankfully before anyone took ownership.

I have only ever been involved in one planning hearing, it was fascinating and I was impressed with the Inspector.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.