Dale Farm et al

[AnneWiddecomesArse]

A continuation...

JLK, do you have any evidence to substantiate that this council granted permission for similar development and similar circs to a person/group of different ethnicity?

I hope no-one is suggesting that councils around the country, left and right, are forcing people to tear down extensions or entire houses en masse. A council has 5 years iirc to notice an extension, conversion or new build (or for neighbours to rat the builders out). After that, the situation can be regularised through retrospective pp or through certification of lawfulness.

In these cash strapped days, as in the past cash strapped days, a council is far more likely to grant retrospective pp than to do what Basildon is doing and enforce an eviction and demolition, especially for whatever it may regard as a minor infraction or depending on its assessment of the sort of defensive stand the homeowner/builder might be prepared to make.

The issue of buyers getting cold feet when problems such as extensions that have been built with no permission or inspection, use that has changed from garage to extra room, attic converted to bedroom, etc., with no paperwork indicating pp has ever been applied for let alone granted, comes up frequently when houses are being bought/sold. You can even take out indemnity against charges you may incur as a result.

Are you comparing using your garage as an extra room or converting your attic into a bedroom with putting up enough caravans/sheds/chalets/hard-standing for hundreds of people now Math?? lol...

Are you trying to say that every single extra bit of square footage added to houses all over Britain for the last ten yours has been torn down or restored to its original state, Manky?

Councils turn a blind eye to plenty that has neighbours up in arms. My post was in response to the idea that it is only Travellers and Gypsies who apply for retrospective pp (aka 'abuse the planning system' here in this thread) and I am suggesting that it is part and parcel of what constitutes the planning system in Britain, contrary to the opinion of those who believe planning is some sort of black and white situation whose rights and wrongs are immediately plain to the naked eye, that Travellers = always wrong and the only people doing it wrong.

Nope,I didn't say that. Plenty of people in all colours and shapes apply for retrospective pp.Plenty of people are given it,plenty of people are not. It's not just Travellers who are refused retrospective pp is it?

I was trying to point out the huge difference in impact on the surrounding area and community in using your garage as an extra room or converting your attic into a bedroom and putting up enough caravans/sheds/chalets/hard-standing to house hundreds of people.

Surely even you can see that would be comparing squirrels with zebra's.....
Hence there's often a difference in outcome in the decisions made by councils. Nothing to do with who applied for the pp in the first place.
It's just that certain people can't handle NO for an answer and start shouting 'Racist' and 'Discrimination' .

I think the difference is that most people do not use retrospective planning as a cynical ploy, knowing damn well that they cannot use their ethnic status as a reason to appeal, drag their heels, and appeal again when it is refused. And neither would they be granted legal aid I suspect. So for most people it just simply is not worth it. The outcome may go their way, but it is not a gamble worth taking financially, whereas for the travellers, clearly, even if they don't get planning granted retrospectively they know it is almost impossible to move them once they are there and they play the race card.

But plenty of Travellers do get retrospective pp for small chalets packed to the rafters with large families, with no indoor facilities.

In fact, retrospective pp is the only sort of pp most Travellers get. Only about 10% of their initial pp applications are granted. The vast majority of pp granted to Travellers is retrospective.

Most people go into the planning process with a fair assurance that their application will be taken on its merits and will not be the subject of neighbourhood campaigns against them. Most people who go into the planning process know they have a 20% chance of being turned down initially. Travellers otoh know their chances are slim to none, but they still, perversely, insist on needing a place to live.

Given the extent of discussion online of what to do when it is discovered during the course of a home sale that house sellers have quietly gone about home renovation without going near the planning office, it would seem that thumbing one's nose at the law is not something confined to Travellers. Is this cynicism? There seems to be a sturdy and fairly widespread attitude that your home is your castle, and your land is yours to do what you want with, and not just on the part of Travellers.

Appeals to pp decisions are free in many LAs, maybe all afaik. There may be costs involved with document/plan preparation or paying experts to assess or clarify the application.

retrospective planning permission is complicated e.g. I intend to build a porch, I called my local planning office who confirmed that planning permission would be needed, but advised that below a certain square footage, it was simply a question of rubber stamping the application, and could be done retrospectively

They said that, if I wanted to build a porch that was greater than that square footage, I should get planning permission in advance, because the application would need to be examined. I suspect that most retrospective applications are for permission where people know full well that it is just a formality because they know they've built within all guidelines. Renovation questions are usually a matter for building control, not planning.

Most people who apply for planning permission have a very good idea as to whether or not it will be granted. They would be well aware that a large development on green belt, with massive impact on local schools, health care provision etc is likely to be turned down. Regardless of the ethnic background of the applicant.

Math - your insinuations about planning offices are really very nasty, if you can't support your argument beyond relying on misleading headline statistics.

I don't think I've insinuated anything. Whatever I have said, I have statistics to back it up. If you would like to provide examples of insinuation, then I would be happy to expand on what I posted.

Retrospective pp is far more complicated than you have indicated and far more widespread than you imply with the porch question.

Most rpp applications by Travellers, whether greenbelt or anywhere else, are granted.

interesting as im caught in the middle land near by has suddernley sprung a fence and there are out buildings going up . Some ways it is ideal area small village nothing here at all , no shops/no parks etc very few people localaly who live here to be upset . but on flip side there` a very small full school and right next door is a site of scientific intrest

And no planning permission has been sought for the fence or outbuildings but council are just sitting and waiting to see

/i do not want to get caught between 2 communietes with different ideas and s its the hanger ons that worry me more as seen at Dale farm they the ones prepared to tunr nasty .we already seen more police in a day than we have in a year .