This is the first programme I've seen but the main theme seems to be: middle-aged busybodies who think they own the whole area they live in, and resist any form of change.
Is that the general gist to planning objectors?
If people acted like that were I a developer, I'd go on to seek permission for a bigger/more imposing house to spite them.
I find myself becoming sucked into this programme!
The woman with the wisteria, needs to understand that if that is not her wall she has no right to put pots and baskets on it (fixed on to it) and that the wall can be pulled down by the owner as and when they want to, if she doesnt own it, then she is at risk of it being moved along with her plants.
I find myself becoming sucked into this programme!
The woman with the wisteria, needs to understand that if that is not her wall she has no right to put pots and baskets on it (fixed on to it) and that the wall can be pulled down by the owner as and when they want to, if she doesnt own it, then she is at risk of it being moved along with her plants.
Yes! I'm surprised by the amount of house owners who don't know what wall they own (and are therefore responsible for) and what are their neighbour's walls.
You can waste a lot of time and money repairing a wall that isn't yours!
This is the first programme I've seen but the main theme seems to be: middle-aged busybodies who think they own the whole area they live in, and resist any form of change.
Is that the general gist to planning objectors?
.
Seems to be. Planning laws need a major shake up so that Councils don't waste so much time and money dealing with nimbys. There was the bloke who obviously objects to every application, with his wife saying they were retired and it gives them something to do. It really is absurd that these people can hold up or get developments cancelled without regard for anything other than their own self interest.
Seems to be. Planning laws need a major shake up so that Councils don't waste so much time and money dealing with nimbys. There was the bloke who obviously objects to every application, with his wife saying they were retired and it gives them something to do. It really is absurd that these people can hold up or get developments cancelled without regard for anything other than their own self interest.
Sadly in a democracy your have to listen to everyone fairly. That is how we get monster raving loony parties. (Some of whom form a Government!)
There is no way around that as it is the very basis of democracy. Without it we have dictatorship.
TV doesn't do my profession any favours. It's either oddly posh boy Ptomely Dean, weeping George Clarke or now wide-boy, fly-by-night chancer Dom Pendolino with his pink iPad.
Honestly, we're not all like that. Some of us are dedicated modernists who's sole aim is to blight every town with our hideous white cubes.
I quite like strange design of the flats the Italian bloke and his son want to build.
As for the railings - good grief seriously, railings instead of a wall will ruin the neighbours lives?
Whilst I totally agree about the railings ( why were they even objecting in the first place ?) I also agreed with the objectors point about the 'spin' that was put on the drawings. Those were definitely done to make sure that the wall looked awful & the railings looked aceptable. They were not drawn by someone with an impartial view !
Yes! I'm surprised by the amount of house owners who don't know what wall they own (and are therefore responsible for) and what are their neighbour's walls.
You can waste a lot of time and money repairing a wall that isn't yours!
Unfortuantely it's not that easy to find out !
If it's not on the land registry, it's difficult to find anyone who knows. When I bought my house recently, I asked my solicitor who had studied everything and she didn't know, the previous owners (who had bought it new) did not know. The builder's plans didn't tell me & my neighbours don't know, it is not as straight forward as just finding out (I'm sad to say)
As yet, I've had no reparis - I'm hoping it stays like that
I don't believe this programme is an accurate reflection of the planning process. They seem to have deliberately chosen weirdos and freaks in an attempt to make it entertaining. It's a joke. The stupid quirky music, the bizarre choices of camera shots, the blatant attempts to show people up as ludicrous. It could almost be on Channel 5.
If it's not on the land registry, it's difficult to find anyone who knows. When I bought my house recently, I asked my solicitor who had studied everything and she didn't know, the previous owners (who had bought it new) did not know. The builder's plans didn't tell me & my neighbours don't know, it is not as straight forward as just finding out (I'm sad to say)
As yet, I've had no reparis - I'm hoping it stays like that
If its not on the deeds with a 'T' shape next to the wall or boundary then the boundary has no one person responsible for it. Therefore if you build a wall, you have to ensure that the wall is on your ground and buts up against the actual boundary.
I wish all these Planning Committee Councillors would look as if they are doing serious work on their site visits instead of acting as if they are out on a jolly!
I don't believe this programme is an accurate reflection of the planning process. They seem to have deliberately chosen weirdos and freaks in an attempt to make it entertaining. It's a joke. The stupid quirky music, the bizarre choices of camera shots, the blatant attempts to show people up as ludicrous. It could almost be on Channel 5.
Indeed, I really don't know why they showed shots of the three elderly ladies feet. That was quite bizarre.
Re the posh couple the other night, objecting to a tree house so bloody far away as to be inconsequential, I did notice the woman's nasty and insidious little hint of suspected paedophilia with regard to the neighbour being able to watch her children in the garden. Very nasty and a bit chilling that she would stoop so low.
Indeed, I really don't know why they showed shots of the three elderly ladies feet. That was quite bizarre.
Re the posh couple the other night, objecting to a tree house so bloody far away as to be inconsequential, I did notice the woman's nasty and insidious little hint of suspected paedophilia with regard to the neighbour being able to watch her children in the garden. Very nasty and a bit chilling that she would stoop so low.
Me either, unless it was just to add to the general feeling of dottiness and weirdness. I think it does a real dis-service to the whole planning system. It's a serious subject especially with the latest government changes. They've obviously spent ages trying to get the oddest cases and the oddest groups of people.
The scheduling of stripping this programme has lessened the enjoyment of this series.
Once a week, for the 8 week run would have been fine, but not four days a week for an hour. Stripping a series throughout the week works with Michael Portillo's railway series's or Coach Trip, as they are 30 mins long, but not this.
The scheduling of stripping this programme has lessened the enjoyment of this series.
Once a week, for the 8 week run would have been fine, but not four days a week for an hour. Stripping a series throughout the week works with Michael Portillo's railway series's or Coach Trip, as they are 30 mins long, but not this.
I agree entirely. I've missed lots of bits out of all these programmes, as an hours telly right around tea-time is too intrusive. Once a week, at 8 or 9 pm would have been perfect. It's not as if each days events carried on into the next programme either, which would have been some justification for the "urgency" of the scheduling.
This guy is over exaggerating about this pipeline.
I was unclear as to why an underground pipeline was going to suddenly explode after all these years. If its that risky, surely he shouldn't be walking through the woods any more, for his own safety.
His report mentioned Buncefield, as an example in case the planning committee were unable to imagine a fuel explosion. Why not mention 9/11 because if a plane crashed in the woods, it would be far worse if there were 70 holiday lodges there than if there were none.
In fact, if a plane crashes in the woods and no one is there, does it make a sound? ( I am available to speak on your behalf at any committee meeting, by the way.)
The obvious concern with planning is that the committee reject it on 'moral/populist' grounds yet a court of law/secretary of state won't accept that reasoning if it meets solid planning laws
Hence the senior planner lady's frustration with her committee. It's only going to cost a huge amount of taxpayer's money, to achieve the same result as the planning officer's recommendation.
Comments
Is that the general gist to planning objectors?
If people acted like that were I a developer, I'd go on to seek permission for a bigger/more imposing house to spite them.
The woman with the wisteria, needs to understand that if that is not her wall she has no right to put pots and baskets on it (fixed on to it) and that the wall can be pulled down by the owner as and when they want to, if she doesnt own it, then she is at risk of it being moved along with her plants.
Yes! I'm surprised by the amount of house owners who don't know what wall they own (and are therefore responsible for) and what are their neighbour's walls.
You can waste a lot of time and money repairing a wall that isn't yours!
Seems to be. Planning laws need a major shake up so that Councils don't waste so much time and money dealing with nimbys. There was the bloke who obviously objects to every application, with his wife saying they were retired and it gives them something to do. It really is absurd that these people can hold up or get developments cancelled without regard for anything other than their own self interest.
As for the railings - good grief seriously, railings instead of a wall will ruin the neighbours lives?
Sadly in a democracy your have to listen to everyone fairly. That is how we get monster raving loony parties. (Some of whom form a Government!)
There is no way around that as it is the very basis of democracy. Without it we have dictatorship.
Honestly, we're not all like that. Some of us are dedicated modernists who's sole aim is to blight every town with our hideous white cubes.
And I thought Alfie the Birds view would improve, from that Yard, behind the Houses.
If it's not on the land registry, it's difficult to find anyone who knows. When I bought my house recently, I asked my solicitor who had studied everything and she didn't know, the previous owners (who had bought it new) did not know. The builder's plans didn't tell me & my neighbours don't know, it is not as straight forward as just finding out (I'm sad to say)
As yet, I've had no reparis - I'm hoping it stays like that
If its not on the deeds with a 'T' shape next to the wall or boundary then the boundary has no one person responsible for it. Therefore if you build a wall, you have to ensure that the wall is on your ground and buts up against the actual boundary.
You can't tell the council planners how to do their job
Indeed, I really don't know why they showed shots of the three elderly ladies feet. That was quite bizarre.
Re the posh couple the other night, objecting to a tree house so bloody far away as to be inconsequential, I did notice the woman's nasty and insidious little hint of suspected paedophilia with regard to the neighbour being able to watch her children in the garden. Very nasty and a bit chilling that she would stoop so low.
Me either, unless it was just to add to the general feeling of dottiness and weirdness. I think it does a real dis-service to the whole planning system. It's a serious subject especially with the latest government changes. They've obviously spent ages trying to get the oddest cases and the oddest groups of people.
Once a week, for the 8 week run would have been fine, but not four days a week for an hour. Stripping a series throughout the week works with Michael Portillo's railway series's or Coach Trip, as they are 30 mins long, but not this.
I agree entirely. I've missed lots of bits out of all these programmes, as an hours telly right around tea-time is too intrusive. Once a week, at 8 or 9 pm would have been perfect. It's not as if each days events carried on into the next programme either, which would have been some justification for the "urgency" of the scheduling.
I was unclear as to why an underground pipeline was going to suddenly explode after all these years. If its that risky, surely he shouldn't be walking through the woods any more, for his own safety.
His report mentioned Buncefield, as an example in case the planning committee were unable to imagine a fuel explosion. Why not mention 9/11 because if a plane crashed in the woods, it would be far worse if there were 70 holiday lodges there than if there were none.
In fact, if a plane crashes in the woods and no one is there, does it make a sound?
( I am available to speak on your behalf at any committee meeting, by the way.)