As I have said before on this forum, we are all entitled to our own opinion. I won't try and browbeat into submission those who have a different opinion to mine and hope that they won't try and make me change my mind. Having had experience of being in the wrong side of the planning authorities, I know that it is possible to reach a happy conclusion for all. Just needs a little give and take.
I can only assume that most people who post here have no direct experience of the problems people can have with the planning authorities, ref use of agricultural land. My neighbours and I have - and are continuing to have - a huge problem with what's happening on the land which adjoins their land & house, and (a few yards away) mine. Some so-called "portable" sheds have been erected in connection with a poultry business - the sheds are not in any way portable, and some now have a permanent mains power supply. The person concerned contravenes all sorts of rules & regs ref housing/movement of livestock and in spite of a court case (which he lost) continues to do so. Although various agencies have been involved - from the RSPCA & Trading Standards etc to other government departments, so far he's still getting away with it. For this reason, if no other, I believe that we must try to insist that the various laws are complied with, whatever other so-called "mitigating circumstances" might seem to apply. As I said in an earlier post, I feel sorry for the lady in question if she has inadvertently contravened planning laws - but whatever laws are in place, they should apply/be adhered to by everyone - and I wish they were being fully enforced here!
Hypercharleyfarley, i am really sorry to hear of your problem, and the heavy handed action taken by the council in Jean Bailey's case, by the sound of things, seems fully appropriate in the case you mention. I have also lived near a chicken farm! Treating Jean B in the same way seems to me to be not appropriate, however, and all cases can't be treated the same.
It is very striking that there was an initial cry of outrage (there's another thread that mentions this lady) but now this has gone very quiet. People are very persuadable, sometimes, and the tide of opinion has changed. The circumstances haven't.
Tina, the law must be upheld. That's a vital principle. But it is also true that unjust or foolish laws should not be upheld but changed. Furthermore, supposing that this is a just law that applies in all cases, even the law courts recognise that penalties should not be the same for all who have broken the law. That's why one person might get two years in jail while others get only a suspended sentence. A 'suspended sentence' in this case would be perfectly acceptable - rap her over the knuckles, tell her never to do it again, and let her off!
Posts
Ahh, but one must uphold the law GG.
As I have said before on this forum, we are all entitled to our own opinion. I won't try and browbeat into submission those who have a different opinion to mine and hope that they won't try and make me change my mind. Having had experience of being in the wrong side of the planning authorities, I know that it is possible to reach a happy conclusion for all. Just needs a little give and take.
I can only assume that most people who post here have no direct experience of the problems people can have with the planning authorities, ref use of agricultural land. My neighbours and I have - and are continuing to have - a huge problem with what's happening on the land which adjoins their land & house, and (a few yards away) mine. Some so-called "portable" sheds have been erected in connection with a poultry business - the sheds are not in any way portable, and some now have a permanent mains power supply. The person concerned contravenes all sorts of rules & regs ref housing/movement of livestock and in spite of a court case (which he lost) continues to do so. Although various agencies have been involved - from the RSPCA & Trading Standards etc to other government departments, so far he's still getting away with it. For this reason, if no other, I believe that we must try to insist that the various laws are complied with, whatever other so-called "mitigating circumstances" might seem to apply. As I said in an earlier post, I feel sorry for the lady in question if she has inadvertently contravened planning laws - but whatever laws are in place, they should apply/be adhered to by everyone - and I wish they were being fully enforced here!
Hypercharleyfarley, i am really sorry to hear of your problem, and the heavy handed action taken by the council in Jean Bailey's case, by the sound of things, seems fully appropriate in the case you mention. I have also lived near a chicken farm! Treating Jean B in the same way seems to me to be not appropriate, however, and all cases can't be treated the same.
It is very striking that there was an initial cry of outrage (there's another thread that mentions this lady) but now this has gone very quiet. People are very persuadable, sometimes, and the tide of opinion has changed. The circumstances haven't.
Tina, the law must be upheld. That's a vital principle. But it is also true that unjust or foolish laws should not be upheld but changed. Furthermore, supposing that this is a just law that applies in all cases, even the law courts recognise that penalties should not be the same for all who have broken the law. That's why one person might get two years in jail while others get only a suspended sentence. A 'suspended sentence' in this case would be perfectly acceptable - rap her over the knuckles, tell her never to do it again, and let her off!
So the neighbours do the same-do the same rules apply?-they can get away with this as well?
What about round the corner- they can do what they want? -and say if she can and why not us?
So where does this end?
There is a lot more to this story that some "heavy handed" attitude by the Council-of that you can be sure.
www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/d-prison-lose-pond.../story.html
Well, surprise, surprise. Knew it wouldn't work.
This is the link I posted on the first page-is this what you are looking for Tina?
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/d-prison-lose-garden-Pensioner-Jean-Bailey-faces/story-18353876-detail/story.html#axzz2NFkTAQF3
No Geoffrey, There is now a more up-to-date version posted 4 hours ago. It seems she has a lot of support. Tut, tut. What is the world coming to.
Found it
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/d-prison-lose-pond-Pressure-grows-Newcastle/story-18390827-detail/story.html#axzz2NLqvSW6q
from today
Knew you would come to a damsel's aid!! We must just beg to differ, don't you think.