• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
One percent

Planning rules, pah, I spit on planning rules

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-44068562

A family has been told to tear down their new home or spend £200,000 on a new roof after it was found to be 30 inches too tall.

Asif Naseem moved into the property in Lightwood, Staffordshire, two months ago with his wife and five children.

Stoke-on-Trent council turned down two retrospective planning applications for the £500,000 house due to complaints over the height and dormer windows.

The family said they have nowhere else to go, and no funds for a new roof.

Thirty one objections to the family's retrospective planning application were sent to the council, along with seven letters of support.

 

Sadly lacking in detail from the So-Called BBC but it seems that this individual could just ignore planning rules, build what he likes and then get permission retrospectively 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, One percent said:

 

 

Sadly lacking in detail from the So-Called BBC but it seems that this individual could just ignore planning rules, build what he likes and then get permission retrospectively 

Not yet he hasn't.

While I wouldn't pull down the house, despite it looking completely out of keeping for the area and perhaps more a statement of his perceived penis size,

His get out is to lower the roof and, if that leaves him penniless, as he cliams it would, he can sell the remodeled house and buy somewhere cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

30in

0.762m

Not an accident.

There is also the issue of the dormer windows in the roof.  These also appear to have not been on the original plan.  My guess is that he decided that he wanted a third floor so raised the height of the roof so as to be able to fit it in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

There is also the issue of the dormer windows in the roof.  These also appear to have not been on the original plan.  My guess is that he decided that he wanted a third floor so raised the height of the roof so as to be able to fit it in

Completely missing the point about having to ask for permission...


They can seize the house off him for all I care. He just needs to call it a mosque and it'll be fine though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the house was going to look vile even without the extra roof height. The issue here is the extra height that has enabled the attic to be changed into a liveable space. He added the dormer windows - although legally you can add dormer windows to the rear of a property you can only add roof lights to the front. For me the height is not the issue, it’s the dormer windows. I would be less concerned with the roof height but the dormer windows should go (along with the stairwell going into the roof space).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

The house is tasteless IMO but honestly, the excess height and dormer windows hardly affect anyone else by the look of it. What about a significant fine instead of demolition? Say 50 or 100k, it needs to be quite a lot or people will just do what they want and pay the fines.

I've known lots of boomers in the UK go beyond the planning permission.  They see it as their 'right'.  One build over the property line onto a relatives land by about half a foot.  Council did nothing.  Funny enough, that boomer was well connected to the village leaders....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is plain and simply sticking your finger up to the local authority building control dept.

The local scumbag builder added an extra-floor to what was supposed to be a 3-story block of flats and there are safety implications to such shenanigans.

This sort of thing is a big problem within the ethnic bunch in general as they end up applying third world values to anything they touch which is why there are so many shittily 'modified' houses where they live en-masse.

The extra 2.5 feet enable him to hugely boost the value of the place and is like waving your dick about whilst simultaneously sticking 1 finger up at your neighbours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly this house looks like most of North Leeds (north Leeds is the posh part).  It’s interesting that the SJW /Farrow and Ball loving  types become very agitated when BMEs move in next door and install giant gold elephants on the gateposts.  Real dilemma for them (the SJWs) due to a marked cultural difference in taste.   BMEs like the Jewish Community do not do understated only Bling and the SJWs have a big problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ina said:

Frankly this house looks like most of North Leeds (north Leeds is the posh part).  It’s interesting that the SJW /Farrow and Ball loving  types become very agitated when BMEs move in next door and install giant gold elephants on the gateposts.  Real dilemma for them (the SJWs) due to a marked cultural difference in taste.   BMEs like the Jewish Community do not do understated only Bling and the SJWs have a big problem with that.

It's cos they are racist, innit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wherebee said:

It's cos they are racist, innit

Yup my late mother in law was one of them.  Died in 96 and left me £1k in her will.  I thought how can I spend it that would piss her off more than anything else so I bought myself a set of alloy wheels for my Volvo V40.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Ina said:

Frankly this house looks like most of North Leeds (north Leeds is the posh part).  It’s interesting that the SJW /Farrow and Ball loving  types become very agitated when BMEs move in next door and install giant gold elephants on the gateposts.  Real dilemma for them (the SJWs) due to a marked cultural difference in taste.   BMEs like the Jewish Community do not do understated only Bling and the SJWs have a big problem with that.

I once asked a young Arab gentleman whether there was an Arabic word for 'tacky'...

He thought for a while, and then declared:

"The Egyptians have a word ... (followed by a sound similar to clearing one's throat) ... it means, 'slightly over-done'".

Share this post


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

The house is tasteless IMO but honestly, the excess height and dormer windows hardly affect anyone else by the look of it. What about a significant fine instead of demolition? Say 50 or 100k, it needs to be quite a lot or people will just do what they want and pay the fines.

TBH it's a lot less worse than fairly well moneyed Asians normally go for although has the usual lack of any garden or landscaping whatsoever.

Seems like mostly jealously really it wouldn't bother me particularly I'd get rid of planning rules almost entirely when acres of Barratt shiteboxes get waved through littered next to every bypass and ring road in the country I can't see how this is a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

The house is tasteless IMO but honestly, the excess height and dormer windows hardly affect anyone else by the look of it. What about a significant fine instead of demolition? Say 50 or 100k, it needs to be quite a lot or people will just do what they want and pay the fines.

Dangerous, though -- all sorts of things would start happening.

I'm generally in favour of 'pragmatic government', but in the case of planning it is clear that people will only take advantage if you go with pragmatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laws and rules should apply equally to everyone without exception. Do away with planning rules or bulldoze it. I don't particularly care which.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NTB said:

Laws and rules should apply equally to everyone without exception. Do away with planning rules or bulldoze it. I don't particularly care which.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, One percent said:

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. 

Indeed. Something I find particularly vexing to the point that I would make a sizable donation to a non troughing charity (if I can find one)  if I were chosen to drive the bulldozer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NTB said:

Indeed. Something I find particularly vexing to the point that I would make a sizable donation to a non troughing charity (if I can find one)  if I were chosen to drive the bulldozer.

Just nick one, knock it down and do a runner. No need to contribute to a charity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, One percent said:

Just nick one, knock it down and do a runner. No need to contribute to a charity. 

Unfortunately for that plan, I'm still law abiding. For now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NTB said:

Unfortunately for that plan, I'm still law abiding. For now.

Perhaps you need to ditch the moral compass.  Most others appear to have done so. o.O

mind, I’m with you and find it difficult to go against the rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.