Jump to content

A fool and his money.....

Regulars
  • Posts

    461
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

A fool and his money..... last won the day on March 2

A fool and his money..... had the most liked content!

About A fool and his money.....

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

A fool and his money.....'s Achievements

Proficient

Proficient (10/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • One Month Later
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare

Recent Badges

569

Reputation

  1. You're missing the point completely. Houses were built that wouldn't have passed planning had their intended use been considered. The reasons for this are irrelevant. Like you say it's what happened. I completely agree with you the fate of the hundreds of families who owned them should be taken into account and possibly even the hotel etc. My point is that something happened that shouldn't have happened and if it's not appropriate to take other factors into account in Dan's case, why was it OK then? If it's dangerous to set a precedent in Dan's case why wasn't it dangerous to set a precedent then? I'm sure if Defa wanted they could have had an enquiry and somehow found that no law had been broken and nobody was to blame. They chose not to. I know the two cases are completely different, I'm not stupid. I think it's fair to say thouh that the two cases we're handled completely differently mainly due to financial considerations rather than purely righting a wrong.
  2. So you have to wonder why the planning was granted. Was it in deference to planning regulations or something else?
  3. You have a funny interpretation of my moods. Last night you accused me of being full of rage, today aggressive. I'm not sure which of my posts make you think either.
  4. But that's exactly my point. The fact is the houses would not have passed planning in their existing form. And yet they are still standing today. It was made to work, the law was somehow found not to have been broken. Do you really believe if you or I tried the same thing we'd get away with it?
  5. The planners were certainly misled. The law was abused. But no one was to blame. No one was evicted, no one was prosecuted. The law can be massaged when it suits.
  6. I agree. I'm not the one suggesting that allowing Dan to stay would set a precedent making it impossible to evict similar cases in future.
  7. Do you agree that is an abuse of planning laws?
  8. The planning was applied for based on it being tourist accomodation, that was never the intention. This is what I mean, the law is interpreted in different ways depending on how much money you've got. If the original planning application had been for residential housing it would never have been passed how it stands.
  9. A beautiful building though, one of Douglas' finest.
  10. He had planning for holiday accommodation, not residential houses.
  11. Does that excuse his flagrant abuse of planning laws?
  12. But Gubay broke the law. Is that OK if you've built a business? Is that OK if you give to charity? You, Max, Gladys and Ghost have spent the last 20 pages that the law is the very fabric that holds our society together and that the government had no choice but to evict Dan and demolish his home, regardless of his character or other actions. Now here you are defending the building of nearly 200 houses without planning permission because the builder built up a business and gave some money to charity. Make your mind up!
  13. I'm sure he was a very hard working and affable chap. What if the next person who decides to build 200 houses without planning permission is an arrogant asshole though? We can't be setting a precedent just because Gubay was a nice man can we?
  14. There was no reason why Gubay couldn't have asked for planning permission in the first place before he started building. It was his choice to go the wrong way and no one else's. The law was broken in both cases, yet you and the government seem to find one acceptable and the other not. Shouldn't the law apply to everyone equally?
×
×
  • Create New...