Madness

« Mixed Signals | Your Red Scarf Matches Your Eyes »

Madness

by SeasideMan ^Pro @ 25/09/09 – 09:08:17

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8273782.stm

A family has been banned from living in their house, but holidaymakers can stay there:

"Jonathan and Emma Jones said they spent £100,000 converting and extending an old barn in Neath Port Talbot.

But planners ruled the work counted as a new build and turned down the Jones' re-application for planning permission.

Neath Port Talbot council said the dwelling proposal was "contrary to policy" but making it a holiday home supported its strategy for tourism"

This seems stupid to me. The barn wouldn't have been converted unless the family did it, and now it has to be holidaymakers only, which means that the house will only be lived in for some of the year rather than for all of it. The Jobsworth's at the council who made this silly decision should be ashamed of themselves.

Tom.
Options:
Tags:
- photograph
- wales
- planning
- local
- council
- seagull
- permission

40 Comments to Madness

Hide subcomments

- brokendownangel ^Pro
- 25/09/09 @ 09:53:29
If they intended to have it as a main residence they should be allowed to or not, but the council shouldn't be able to dictate that it can be lived in for so many months a year!!
They should have applied for and got planning prior to spending and can't really moan if the council refuse it retrospectively or even if they are asked to pull it down - friends of mine have just done this!! But they shouldn't be told it can stay only on these terms either
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 25/09/09 @ 10:42:59
  The whole situation smacks of hard-headedness in the council to me. It's acceptable as a "holiday home" but not as a residence, yet it wouldn't even be available as a holiday home if it hadn't been converted. I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye, but the bottom line is that less money gets spent in the area if it's a holiday home than if people are living there all year round. Effectively, the council have shot themselves in the foot and look very foolish.
  - - brokendownangel ^Pro
    - 25/09/09 @ 13:28:36
    councils do that a lot unfortunately!
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink
- Munzly
- http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/
- 25/09/09 @ 09:53:47
Had they retained 10% of the original, there would have been no problem.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 25/09/09 @ 10:48:22
  I'll take your word for that - these regulations are mysterious to me.
  - - Munzly
    - http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/
    - 25/09/09 @ 11:05:11
    They were obviously badly advised, maybe they didn't use proper architects, if they did they might be able to sue them.
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 25/09/09 @ 16:12:04
      Interesting, I wonder if that has occurred to them.
      - Munzly
        
        http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/
        
        25/09/09 @ 16:24:37
        
        There's also the option of going to appeal, but there's no substitute to getting it right first time - Having been in the Architec' biz, I know all the pitfalls. Client stupidity often defeats the best laid plans. Builder stupidity has its place as well, not to mention Looney architects.... But worst of all is the customer who thinks its all so easy that they can troll right on with no help whatsoever apart from some kid knocking out drawings in his back bedroom!
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        25/09/09 @ 16:27:45
        
        Somehow I get the feeling in this case that your last option there might well be the correct one!
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- WildWitch
- 25/09/09 @ 10:29:24
How stupid. I often wonder who makes up these daft rules i really do.

Maybe the couple could say they are on an 11 month a year holiday, taking one of those months away abroad which they could say was their home.

Love that pic by the way.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 25/09/09 @ 10:50:47
  I think this is stupid too. The council have stuck to the letter of the regulations, forgetting the purpose of it which is to bring people and money to the area.
  
  In the pic, the sitting gull is about to be attacked and driven from it's perch!
  
  Tom.
  - - WildWitch
    - 25/09/09 @ 11:58:02
    Neath has some beautiful countryside, its famous for its waterfalls and is popular with walkers but also a very poor area and in need of people and money.
    
    Did you take the pic yourself Tom? I love watching the behaviour of birds, there just so beautiful.
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 25/09/09 @ 16:13:49
      I don't know the Neath area at all, unfortunately. I used to have family in Llantrisant though, that's not so far away I think.
      
      Yes, that's my picture. I love watching the birds, they have such fascinating behaviours. And they are beautiful like you said.
      - WildWitch
        
        26/09/09 @ 14:18:42
        
        Neath has some extremely beautiful parts, im told Neath translates as nest, i believe its because the town is completely surrounded by hills whichever way you look, as if nestled there. From my window i can see the town and the hills surrounding it.
        
        Though the hill opposit my back garden is called the Drummau mountain, not sure its quite big enough to be called a mountain, but thats what its known as.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        26/09/09 @ 14:26:25
        
        I just found drummau mountain on youtube:
        
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NtYd81E38k
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        WildWitch
        
        26/09/09 @ 14:45:08
        
        Cant see my house, maybe thats the view from the other side. I did go halfway up it once.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- Bushka ^Pro
- Bushka
- 25/09/09 @ 11:18:07
I suspect there are fine nuances to the story; as it is, those who take critical decisions re the wider community MUST beware of creating pre-cedents (loopholes) - many people have the propensity for exploiting loopholes...
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 25/09/09 @ 16:14:42
  I reckon more is going on here than meets the eye too. Your point about precedent is a good one, that hadn't occurred to me.
  - - Bushka ^Pro
    - Bushka
    - 25/09/09 @ 17:30:08
    I have found this rationale operating in various places - even when we lived up in Yorkshire. We, humans, will always try to 'stretch a point'. However, local Councils CAN be bloody-minded!
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 25/09/09 @ 17:39:11
      I heard of a case once where a council sold one of it's own buildings to developers and then refused them permission to develop it! I still think that's hilarious :-)
      - Bushka ^Pro
        
        Bushka
        
        25/09/09 @ 20:10:18
        
        I can believe that...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- catsInVienna
- 25/09/09 @ 11:33:21
Great picture! Strange story, bureaucracy is sometimes not logical.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 25/09/09 @ 16:15:33
  Bureaucrats make a living from telling the people who pay them what to do. Some are certainly needed or there would be chaos, but I'm sure there are too many.
  - - catsInVienna
    - 25/09/09 @ 16:24:50
    I agree with you. Some laws are also very stupid, for example if you are drunken and you ride your bike, it is possible to loose your driving licence - and you are not driving a car.
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 25/09/09 @ 16:28:31
      Really? Here, there is a charge of drunk in charge of a bicycle but that doesn't affect a car licence.
      - catsInVienna
        
        25/09/09 @ 16:35:26
        
        Yes I think this stupid law is only in Austria!
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- Rosiebud
- 25/09/09 @ 11:39:32
I agree with you..... crazy! XXX
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 25/09/09 @ 16:16:31
  I would have thought the council would be pleased - a wrecked eyesore of a barn is now a useful property again. It's even in keeping with the surrounding properties!
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- sparkles101
- http://sparkles101.blog.co.uk
- 25/09/09 @ 11:46:47
this is complete madness surely it was told to these floke otherwise im sure they are entitled to compensation surely? xxx
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 25/09/09 @ 16:17:21
  I'd be surprised if they got compensated, but as Munzly says perhaps they could sue their architect (if they used one).
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- lilian1
- 25/09/09 @ 12:29:33
Totally agree Tom utter nonsense nice pic by the way
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 25/09/09 @ 16:18:15
  The thing that irritates me about this is that what is best for the area has been bypassed in order to follow a rule.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- frankofyle
- 25/09/09 @ 13:27:47
Small-minded petty bureaucrats drunk with power yet completely devoid of common sense. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. Cracking pic.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 25/09/09 @ 16:18:43
  Yup, pocket Napoleons at work.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- Jabberwoc
- http://www.Beanpods.co.uk
- 25/09/09 @ 14:34:40
Nuts.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 25/09/09 @ 16:19:25
  It just goes to show that stupidity runs through all levels of government!
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- Miza-T
- 25/09/09 @ 17:34:46
That is pure madness, complete nonsense!!
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 25/09/09 @ 17:40:50
  I agree, it's a silly sticking to rules that clearly should be bent to do everyone some good. The bad publicity is bound to hurt the council too.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- jackfrost ^Pro
- 25/09/09 @ 17:38:02
They should be given some compassion here...but they did apply to extend and renovate an old barn....trouble was that once the building started they knocked down the original bit and re built it so it ended up a completely new build....Some might say that they were sly in getting around the building regs and got caught....If they got away with it scott free it would open the gates to everyone to buy a derelict building and get permission to renovate it and then just knock it down once you have started....i do think however that the council should now investigate it and if the reasons for knocking the original down were honest and justified then they should allow them to move in.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 25/09/09 @ 17:42:38
  It's a fair point that they may have been a bit sly with the regulations. I'm sure there will be a lengthy and costly investigation now...
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink