Council Stasi or within their rights?

Jury’s out?

The case for:

I do not see a problem here. It’s still looks like a garage from the outside appearance, so it must be jn keeping with the local area, the owners have not extended the boundaries or encroached onto their neighbours properties, and by all intents and purposes they have improved a run-down shed into a pleasant, pretty, affordable home in preference to living in an unhealthy,draughty, damp, inhospitable, near derelict cottage. What has got up the snooty noses of the planning committee is that they didn’t ask permission for a change of use and pay the council £thousands for doing what they have already done, just to get the application rubber stamped by the planning committee Stasi.

The case against:

He seems to think that hiding a property for 4 years means that he can simply put the paperwork in and then live in his converted property. He claims hes done nthing wrong yet he has hidden the window with an ornamental garden chair .Fitted huge gates so it can’t be seen from the road and left the garage doors in place so anyone who actually walked into the courtyard would see would be a garage. If it was as simple as simply not telling anyone you have built a property and hen hiding it for 4 years every unscrupulous property developer would be doing it. If he had put as much effort and planning into refurbishing or even rebuilding the existing cottage he would have no problems but he wanted two properties on the plot and avoid the hassle of making planning applications

Trouble is, for me, I can see both sides. Yes, letter of the law, other neighbours not afforded same largesse etc. And the gate was a bit of a giveaway:

But why on earth are homes on people’s properties, as long as the exterior is in keeping, a matter for the council? Only reason could be money for nothing.

6 comments for “Council Stasi or within their rights?

  1. Mark Matis
    September 19, 2017 at 17:10

    Got to pay the Danegeld, or the Dane will have his Bobbies get it from you By Any Means Necessary.

    With the Mafia, if you at least paid your “taxes”, they actually PROTECTED you.

    Under your current government? Nacho much. “Law Enforcement” exists to protect their Masters, protect their Brothers in Blue (or whatever your local Only Ones wear over on that side of the Pond), and generate revenue. Nothing more.

    • September 19, 2017 at 17:44


    • September 19, 2017 at 17:57

      “” (or whatever your local Only Ones wear over on that side of the Pond), “”

      Down under, well beyond the Pond, far beyond the warm middle bit, our cops wear guns. And our local gummunt does everything in quintuplicate.

  2. ivan
    September 19, 2017 at 20:48

    I am a firm believer in what you do to the insides of a building is up to you and the council/other nosey parkers have no say in the matter – the only exception being historical buildings.

    Likewise if the outside isn’t materially changed, and I don’t count installing new windows, doors etc. as changing if they are in the same style as the originals, then again it is nothing to do with the busybodies.

  3. Mudplugger
    September 19, 2017 at 21:12

    And, at the same time, we are told that there is a major housing shortage and that every effort must be made to increase the housing-stock everywhere in the country (to house the next generation of imported bombers, presumably).

    Looks like this chap was just helping the council to achieve one of its corporate objectives entirely at his own expense. He should be getting a medal not a bollocking.

  4. September 20, 2017 at 04:36

    Agreed again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.