The ArgusJudge rules in favour of Brighton residents fed up with glimpses of naked neighbours (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Judge rules in favour of Brighton residents fed up with glimpses of naked neighbours

The Argus: Judge rules in favour of Brighton residents fed up with glimpses of naked neighbours Judge rules in favour of Brighton residents fed up with glimpses of naked neighbours

Unwanted glimpses of naked neighbours after a home extension was built without planning permission spurred residents to study planning law and take the matter to the High Court.

Residents in Brighton’s Hollingbury Road have spent six years with views directly into the bathroom of their neighbour’s home which breached planning permission.

Neighbour Peter Barker said: “There are three girls all under 12 living nearby and when they played on their climbing frame in the garden they would see the residents going to the toilet, showering and other things that young people do in a bathroom and it is difficult to explain to these children what’s going on.

“It would cost the developer £5 worth of B&Qfilm to cover over those windows.”

A High Court judge ruled in their favour and labelled Brighton and Hove City Council’s failure to take action as “perverse”.

Neighbours say the ball is now in the council’s court to force the property’s developer to resolve the situation.

The court case endedupcosting the city council £10,000 according to the residents, who have criticised the authority’s “disgusting intransigence” in challenging the case all the way to the High Court.

The nightmare began in 2008 when development began transforming a light industrial site into a house.

The completed house had three bedrooms instead of the permitted two, was one metre higher than agreed and had clear glass in windows overlooking neighbouring gardens.

Fed up with the city council’s failure to take enforcement action on the breaches despite repeated pleas from residents and ward councillor Jeanne Lepper, residents got to grips with planning law and defeated a barrister in court.

When the judge’s decision was delivered last week, Mr Baker, 56, became one of the first successful litigants to have a court overrule a council’s decision not to carry out enforcement.

He said: “It’s nice to have got this far but we would like it to result in something more than a landmark law case.”

Stella Crudas, 55, said the home was a like a “spaceship landing at the bottom of her garden” and the previous industrial building was a far better neighbour.

She said: “I am not really happy about going into my garden any more  “I used to like entertaining outside but our guests were put off because they could see straight through their windows."

A Brighton and Hove City Council spokeswoman said: “The council will be reviewing its reasons for deciding not to go ahead with formal enforcement action.

“The council has been talking to the homeowner about installing obscure glazing in the bathroom windows on the ground floor and this has now been done.

“Installing obscure glazing to the upper floor bathroom rooflights will be considered by the council when reviewing its decision.”

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:24am Mon 24 Feb 14

Sir Prised says...

"A Brighton and Hove City Council spokeswoman said: “The council will be reviewing its reasons for deciding not to go ahead with formal enforcement action. " What's the point of planning if developers are allowed to ingnore the rules. What shouild happen is the £10,000 should come out of the Council's salaries account. It might concentrate their minds on getting value for money in the future.
"A Brighton and Hove City Council spokeswoman said: “The council will be reviewing its reasons for deciding not to go ahead with formal enforcement action. " What's the point of planning if developers are allowed to ingnore the rules. What shouild happen is the £10,000 should come out of the Council's salaries account. It might concentrate their minds on getting value for money in the future. Sir Prised
  • Score: 87

9:01am Mon 24 Feb 14

Quiterie says...

This kind of story makes me really cross. Why on earth should these poor people have to resort to going to court in order to make the Council do their job properly? How about the Council actually give us its reasons for deciding not to go ahead with formal enforcement action?

This just confirms to me that Brighton and Hove City Council is packed full of incompetent Council Officials who have no pride in their job and who are a drain on already stretched Council Tax payers.

I've had first hand experience of some truly shocking incompetence by Council Officers. Most bad decisions don't make the paper like this story, but they are happening day in, day out. All very sad.
This kind of story makes me really cross. Why on earth should these poor people have to resort to going to court in order to make the Council do their job properly? How about the Council actually give us its reasons for deciding not to go ahead with formal enforcement action? This just confirms to me that Brighton and Hove City Council is packed full of incompetent Council Officials who have no pride in their job and who are a drain on already stretched Council Tax payers. I've had first hand experience of some truly shocking incompetence by Council Officers. Most bad decisions don't make the paper like this story, but they are happening day in, day out. All very sad. Quiterie
  • Score: 89

9:26am Mon 24 Feb 14

Morpheus says...

I suspect there is more to this than we are being told here. A bit like the estate agent advertising that you can see the sea if you stand on a chair and lean right out of the window.
I suspect there is more to this than we are being told here. A bit like the estate agent advertising that you can see the sea if you stand on a chair and lean right out of the window. Morpheus
  • Score: 1

9:56am Mon 24 Feb 14

whatevernext2013 says...

or the could just plant some trees ,and block out the view
or the could just plant some trees ,and block out the view whatevernext2013
  • Score: -47

10:56am Mon 24 Feb 14

AngryofHollingdean says...

How long would it take for a tree to grow and how much light and space would it take out of a small terraced garden? "Trees" would not block the view from the children's climbing frame or when climbing the tree, or when walking on or sitting on the wall - as children tend to do. Compare the effort and cost of planting a tree (or trees) to the effort of putting some opaque film on the offending window.

Why should the victims of the developer's unlawful actions have to bear the cost of the remedy?

Moreover why would the planning officers suddenly have no objection to an unlawful development having spent a lot of time and effort resisting an application for planning permission and then resisting the developers appeal to the Secretary of State. The local planning authority should have taken the enforcement action it had already decided was necessary after the Government Inspector rejected the appeal for planning permission.

Had the planning department issued an enforcement notice, the reasonable concerns of the neighbours would have been addressed, the developer would have had clear instructions of what was to be done and at the end of the process the development would be legitimised.

Instead, nobody is happy, The development is still unlawful, the council decision is branded "perverse" and we all have to stump up for a £10,000 legal bill. What excellent planning! :0)
How long would it take for a tree to grow and how much light and space would it take out of a small terraced garden? "Trees" would not block the view from the children's climbing frame or when climbing the tree, or when walking on or sitting on the wall - as children tend to do. Compare the effort and cost of planting a tree (or trees) to the effort of putting some opaque film on the offending window. Why should the victims of the developer's unlawful actions have to bear the cost of the remedy? Moreover why would the planning officers suddenly have no objection to an unlawful development having spent a lot of time and effort resisting an application for planning permission and then resisting the developers appeal to the Secretary of State. The local planning authority should have taken the enforcement action it had already decided was necessary after the Government Inspector rejected the appeal for planning permission. Had the planning department issued an enforcement notice, the reasonable concerns of the neighbours would have been addressed, the developer would have had clear instructions of what was to be done and at the end of the process the development would be legitimised. Instead, nobody is happy, The development is still unlawful, the council decision is branded "perverse" and we all have to stump up for a £10,000 legal bill. What excellent planning! :0) AngryofHollingdean
  • Score: 56

11:07am Mon 24 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

This should never have been taken this far.
This should never have been taken this far. mimseycal
  • Score: 33

11:16am Mon 24 Feb 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

Why didn't the man who is exposing himself do something about it? He must be a complete pervert to do this especially in the knowledge that children could see him.
Why didn't the man who is exposing himself do something about it? He must be a complete pervert to do this especially in the knowledge that children could see him. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 32

11:27am Mon 24 Feb 14

Jermery says...

I know it's horrible, but why didn't the offended residents just paint over the windows or cover them with something themselves?
I know it's horrible, but why didn't the offended residents just paint over the windows or cover them with something themselves? Jermery
  • Score: 0

11:43am Mon 24 Feb 14

Stoney33 says...

Im sure a few observatory comments (and sniggers) about the owners naked form would have got a faster and cheaper resoloution
Im sure a few observatory comments (and sniggers) about the owners naked form would have got a faster and cheaper resoloution Stoney33
  • Score: 17

12:22pm Mon 24 Feb 14

paul76 says...

Jermery wrote:
I know it's horrible, but why didn't the offended residents just paint over the windows or cover them with something themselves?
I agree. From the picture you can't see the whole of the adjoining garden and how big it is etc, but how about putting up a 6ft fence alongside the wall? Panels are around £15 each, and ok you might need to pay someone to concrete the posts in if you can't do it yourself, but it is an option. Will also cut light into the bathroom too.

But then on the other hand, why should the neighbours have to pay out to block the view of something that is illegal?

Maybe the building is occupied by our "traveller" friends, hence the councils lack of urgency to enforce the rules?
[quote][p][bold]Jermery[/bold] wrote: I know it's horrible, but why didn't the offended residents just paint over the windows or cover them with something themselves?[/p][/quote]I agree. From the picture you can't see the whole of the adjoining garden and how big it is etc, but how about putting up a 6ft fence alongside the wall? Panels are around £15 each, and ok you might need to pay someone to concrete the posts in if you can't do it yourself, but it is an option. Will also cut light into the bathroom too. But then on the other hand, why should the neighbours have to pay out to block the view of something that is illegal? Maybe the building is occupied by our "traveller" friends, hence the councils lack of urgency to enforce the rules? paul76
  • Score: 20

12:22pm Mon 24 Feb 14

whatevernext2013 says...

AngryofHollingdean wrote:
How long would it take for a tree to grow and how much light and space would it take out of a small terraced garden? "Trees" would not block the view from the children's climbing frame or when climbing the tree, or when walking on or sitting on the wall - as children tend to do. Compare the effort and cost of planting a tree (or trees) to the effort of putting some opaque film on the offending window.

Why should the victims of the developer's unlawful actions have to bear the cost of the remedy?

Moreover why would the planning officers suddenly have no objection to an unlawful development having spent a lot of time and effort resisting an application for planning permission and then resisting the developers appeal to the Secretary of State. The local planning authority should have taken the enforcement action it had already decided was necessary after the Government Inspector rejected the appeal for planning permission.

Had the planning department issued an enforcement notice, the reasonable concerns of the neighbours would have been addressed, the developer would have had clear instructions of what was to be done and at the end of the process the development would be legitimised.

Instead, nobody is happy, The development is still unlawful, the council decision is branded "perverse" and we all have to stump up for a £10,000 legal bill. What excellent planning! :0)
yawn
[quote][p][bold]AngryofHollingdean[/bold] wrote: How long would it take for a tree to grow and how much light and space would it take out of a small terraced garden? "Trees" would not block the view from the children's climbing frame or when climbing the tree, or when walking on or sitting on the wall - as children tend to do. Compare the effort and cost of planting a tree (or trees) to the effort of putting some opaque film on the offending window. Why should the victims of the developer's unlawful actions have to bear the cost of the remedy? Moreover why would the planning officers suddenly have no objection to an unlawful development having spent a lot of time and effort resisting an application for planning permission and then resisting the developers appeal to the Secretary of State. The local planning authority should have taken the enforcement action it had already decided was necessary after the Government Inspector rejected the appeal for planning permission. Had the planning department issued an enforcement notice, the reasonable concerns of the neighbours would have been addressed, the developer would have had clear instructions of what was to be done and at the end of the process the development would be legitimised. Instead, nobody is happy, The development is still unlawful, the council decision is branded "perverse" and we all have to stump up for a £10,000 legal bill. What excellent planning! :0)[/p][/quote]yawn whatevernext2013
  • Score: -51

12:24pm Mon 24 Feb 14

DC Brighton says...

Jermery wrote:
I know it's horrible, but why didn't the offended residents just paint over the windows or cover them with something themselves?
Well, because apart from anything else, it is someone else's property?

I'm sure the council would have objected to the neighbours painting someone else's windows!
[quote][p][bold]Jermery[/bold] wrote: I know it's horrible, but why didn't the offended residents just paint over the windows or cover them with something themselves?[/p][/quote]Well, because apart from anything else, it is someone else's property? I'm sure the council would have objected to the neighbours painting someone else's windows! DC Brighton
  • Score: 31

1:01pm Mon 24 Feb 14

prestonman says...

From the article "The nightmare began in 2008 when development began transforming a light industrial site into a house. "

The nightmare seems to be: if the kids clim to the top of the climbing frame, and if at the very same time someone in the house in question uses the bathroom, and if the kids are looking in that direction, then they will see unwanted things (though normally when you look in to a window in a daytime you can only just make out movement at best).

Clearly a building should comply with its planning application and action taken when it doesn't, but does seems to have been blown out of proportion.
short term fixes might include moving the climbing frame, or even just standing a banana crate on it's side just in front of the windows
From the article "The nightmare began in 2008 when development began transforming a light industrial site into a house. " The nightmare seems to be: if the kids clim to the top of the climbing frame, and if at the very same time someone in the house in question uses the bathroom, and if the kids are looking in that direction, then they will see unwanted things (though normally when you look in to a window in a daytime you can only just make out movement at best). Clearly a building should comply with its planning application and action taken when it doesn't, but does seems to have been blown out of proportion. short term fixes might include moving the climbing frame, or even just standing a banana crate on it's side just in front of the windows prestonman
  • Score: -22

1:10pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Man of steel says...

neighbour’shometha
t
endedupcosting
lawand
Dear Argus,
Still no proof reader?
As Yossa used to say, " Gizza job, I can do that"
As far as the problem with an extension that was built without planning
permission, surely it is just up to the council to tell them to pull it down, this is done all over England, why not in Brigton?
neighbour’shometha t endedupcosting lawand Dear Argus, Still no proof reader? As Yossa used to say, " Gizza job, I can do that" As far as the problem with an extension that was built without planning permission, surely it is just up to the council to tell them to pull it down, this is done all over England, why not in Brigton? Man of steel
  • Score: 22

1:59pm Mon 24 Feb 14

ThinkBrighton says...

Disgusting intransigence, this phrase about sums this hopeless council up.
If it doesn't fit their order of mayhem then they ignore it. Why make planning regulations if your not prepared to uphold them.
Disgusting intransigence, this phrase about sums this hopeless council up. If it doesn't fit their order of mayhem then they ignore it. Why make planning regulations if your not prepared to uphold them. ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 11

2:01pm Mon 24 Feb 14

PorkyChopper says...

I often see my neighbour naked through her bedroom window. Well, I say "neighbour", she lives two streets away. I sometimes have to wait in a tree all night to catch a glimpse. When will the council do something about this? It's disgusting. Any old pervert could just climb over her wall, shin up a forty foot tree, get a pair of binoculars out and watch her getting undressed at night. And take photos.
I often see my neighbour naked through her bedroom window. Well, I say "neighbour", she lives two streets away. I sometimes have to wait in a tree all night to catch a glimpse. When will the council do something about this? It's disgusting. Any old pervert could just climb over her wall, shin up a forty foot tree, get a pair of binoculars out and watch her getting undressed at night. And take photos. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 20

2:46pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Quiterie wrote:
This kind of story makes me really cross. Why on earth should these poor people have to resort to going to court in order to make the Council do their job properly? How about the Council actually give us its reasons for deciding not to go ahead with formal enforcement action?

This just confirms to me that Brighton and Hove City Council is packed full of incompetent Council Officials who have no pride in their job and who are a drain on already stretched Council Tax payers.

I've had first hand experience of some truly shocking incompetence by Council Officers. Most bad decisions don't make the paper like this story, but they are happening day in, day out. All very sad.
And the entire pack of party political hacks (councillors) let them do it.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: This kind of story makes me really cross. Why on earth should these poor people have to resort to going to court in order to make the Council do their job properly? How about the Council actually give us its reasons for deciding not to go ahead with formal enforcement action? This just confirms to me that Brighton and Hove City Council is packed full of incompetent Council Officials who have no pride in their job and who are a drain on already stretched Council Tax payers. I've had first hand experience of some truly shocking incompetence by Council Officers. Most bad decisions don't make the paper like this story, but they are happening day in, day out. All very sad.[/p][/quote]And the entire pack of party political hacks (councillors) let them do it. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 16

2:59pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Richada says...

What a ridiculous waste of OUR money on the council's part here.

How on earth could this have possibly have gone to the High Court with the council defending a clear breach of their own planning consent?

No wonder they are asking for a 4.75% council tax increase, they appear hell bent on wasting as much cash as possible merely to claim how hard up they are in this time of austerity.

Simple common sense dictates that the council should have backed local residents in this situation.
What a ridiculous waste of OUR money on the council's part here. How on earth could this have possibly have gone to the High Court with the council defending a clear breach of their own planning consent? No wonder they are asking for a 4.75% council tax increase, they appear hell bent on wasting as much cash as possible merely to claim how hard up they are in this time of austerity. Simple common sense dictates that the council should have backed local residents in this situation. Richada
  • Score: 20

3:01pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Look at the photo and consider:

Where is north? If those outrageously intrusive windows at wall height are south facing then these poor residents cannot plant trees n their garden (I'd suggest those fast-growing cypress jobbies or cedar) or seek planning consent to raise the wall height. It would be blocked on the grounds of light loss, overshadowing. Similarly, even a high trellis festooned with thorny rambling roses, clematis, etc. could be contested.

If the windows face north the question is different. Why should the garden be deprived of light, sunlight from the south just to hide that abomination with trees/high hedges/increased wall height?

That extension should NEVER have been given consent to be used for domestic use.
Look at the photo and consider: Where is north? If those outrageously intrusive windows at wall height are south facing then these poor residents cannot plant trees n their garden (I'd suggest those fast-growing cypress jobbies or cedar) or seek planning consent to raise the wall height. It would be blocked on the grounds of light loss, overshadowing. Similarly, even a high trellis festooned with thorny rambling roses, clematis, etc. could be contested. If the windows face north the question is different. Why should the garden be deprived of light, sunlight from the south just to hide that abomination with trees/high hedges/increased wall height? That extension should NEVER have been given consent to be used for domestic use. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 15

3:05pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

AngryofHollingdean wrote:
How long would it take for a tree to grow and how much light and space would it take out of a small terraced garden? "Trees" would not block the view from the children's climbing frame or when climbing the tree, or when walking on or sitting on the wall - as children tend to do. Compare the effort and cost of planting a tree (or trees) to the effort of putting some opaque film on the offending window.

Why should the victims of the developer's unlawful actions have to bear the cost of the remedy?

Moreover why would the planning officers suddenly have no objection to an unlawful development having spent a lot of time and effort resisting an application for planning permission and then resisting the developers appeal to the Secretary of State. The local planning authority should have taken the enforcement action it had already decided was necessary after the Government Inspector rejected the appeal for planning permission.

Had the planning department issued an enforcement notice, the reasonable concerns of the neighbours would have been addressed, the developer would have had clear instructions of what was to be done and at the end of the process the development would be legitimised.

Instead, nobody is happy, The development is still unlawful, the council decision is branded "perverse" and we all have to stump up for a £10,000 legal bill. What excellent planning! :0)
Can you give us the planning application no. for that horror next door please?
[quote][p][bold]AngryofHollingdean[/bold] wrote: How long would it take for a tree to grow and how much light and space would it take out of a small terraced garden? "Trees" would not block the view from the children's climbing frame or when climbing the tree, or when walking on or sitting on the wall - as children tend to do. Compare the effort and cost of planting a tree (or trees) to the effort of putting some opaque film on the offending window. Why should the victims of the developer's unlawful actions have to bear the cost of the remedy? Moreover why would the planning officers suddenly have no objection to an unlawful development having spent a lot of time and effort resisting an application for planning permission and then resisting the developers appeal to the Secretary of State. The local planning authority should have taken the enforcement action it had already decided was necessary after the Government Inspector rejected the appeal for planning permission. Had the planning department issued an enforcement notice, the reasonable concerns of the neighbours would have been addressed, the developer would have had clear instructions of what was to be done and at the end of the process the development would be legitimised. Instead, nobody is happy, The development is still unlawful, the council decision is branded "perverse" and we all have to stump up for a £10,000 legal bill. What excellent planning! :0)[/p][/quote]Can you give us the planning application no. for that horror next door please? Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 7

3:28pm Mon 24 Feb 14

AngryofHollingdean says...

The rejected retrospective application was application BH2010/01497 and the details can still be found on the BHCC planning portal

However the details of the original application seem to have gone from the BHCC planning portal

The original permission granted (but never implemented) was from application number BH2006/03532

There is a current application for a certificate of of lawful use and development relating to the site which is under consideration (over a year now).
The rejected retrospective application was application BH2010/01497 and the details can still be found on the BHCC planning portal However the details of the original application seem to have gone from the BHCC planning portal The original permission granted (but never implemented) was from application number BH2006/03532 There is a current application for a certificate of of lawful use and development relating to the site which is under consideration (over a year now). AngryofHollingdean
  • Score: 10

4:01pm Mon 24 Feb 14

sussexram40 says...

I wouldnt be complaining about being able to see naked neighbours if they were attractive females aged 18 to 25. Think I'd put up with it in those circumstances and maybe invest in a pair of binoculars.
I wouldnt be complaining about being able to see naked neighbours if they were attractive females aged 18 to 25. Think I'd put up with it in those circumstances and maybe invest in a pair of binoculars. sussexram40
  • Score: -5

4:48pm Mon 24 Feb 14

AngryofHollingdean says...

As an adult I have no problem with nudity. More so if the bodies on display are physically attractive. But is this appropriate observation for a young child? Or indeed beneficial to the person/s using the facilities of the new house? Surely everybody is entitled to some privacy in this respect?

At the start of the 21st century one takes it for granted that obscured glazing in bathroom and toilet windows is a requirement for all modern housing! Very few planning permissions are granted without that condition.

Humrumph! I shall go and take tea with Angry of Hove....
As an adult I have no problem with nudity. More so if the bodies on display are physically attractive. But is this appropriate observation for a young child? Or indeed beneficial to the person/s using the facilities of the new house? Surely everybody is entitled to some privacy in this respect? At the start of the 21st century one takes it for granted that obscured glazing in bathroom and toilet windows is a requirement for all modern housing! Very few planning permissions are granted without that condition. Humrumph! I shall go and take tea with Angry of Hove.... AngryofHollingdean
  • Score: 5

5:02pm Mon 24 Feb 14

NickBtn says...

Quiterie wrote:
This kind of story makes me really cross. Why on earth should these poor people have to resort to going to court in order to make the Council do their job properly? How about the Council actually give us its reasons for deciding not to go ahead with formal enforcement action?

This just confirms to me that Brighton and Hove City Council is packed full of incompetent Council Officials who have no pride in their job and who are a drain on already stretched Council Tax payers.

I've had first hand experience of some truly shocking incompetence by Council Officers. Most bad decisions don't make the paper like this story, but they are happening day in, day out. All very sad.
I agree. Once again good evidence of just how inefficient the council is. The enforcement action would have been easy for them to take but the council dug their heels in and now they (actually we) have a large legal bill to pay. A bill that is far larger than any cost for obscuring the windows

I'd like to see evidence of how the council will review and discipline the officers involved. This includes the senior managers who must have been involved to let this go to court. Until this happens the council will keep wasting our money on similar cases

Once again more evidence that a council tax rise isn't justified. Just need to get the council to work cost effectively
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: This kind of story makes me really cross. Why on earth should these poor people have to resort to going to court in order to make the Council do their job properly? How about the Council actually give us its reasons for deciding not to go ahead with formal enforcement action? This just confirms to me that Brighton and Hove City Council is packed full of incompetent Council Officials who have no pride in their job and who are a drain on already stretched Council Tax payers. I've had first hand experience of some truly shocking incompetence by Council Officers. Most bad decisions don't make the paper like this story, but they are happening day in, day out. All very sad.[/p][/quote]I agree. Once again good evidence of just how inefficient the council is. The enforcement action would have been easy for them to take but the council dug their heels in and now they (actually we) have a large legal bill to pay. A bill that is far larger than any cost for obscuring the windows I'd like to see evidence of how the council will review and discipline the officers involved. This includes the senior managers who must have been involved to let this go to court. Until this happens the council will keep wasting our money on similar cases Once again more evidence that a council tax rise isn't justified. Just need to get the council to work cost effectively NickBtn
  • Score: 15

5:33pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Sussex jim says...

whatevernext2013 wrote:
AngryofHollingdean wrote:
How long would it take for a tree to grow and how much light and space would it take out of a small terraced garden? "Trees" would not block the view from the children's climbing frame or when climbing the tree, or when walking on or sitting on the wall - as children tend to do. Compare the effort and cost of planting a tree (or trees) to the effort of putting some opaque film on the offending window.

Why should the victims of the developer's unlawful actions have to bear the cost of the remedy?

Moreover why would the planning officers suddenly have no objection to an unlawful development having spent a lot of time and effort resisting an application for planning permission and then resisting the developers appeal to the Secretary of State. The local planning authority should have taken the enforcement action it had already decided was necessary after the Government Inspector rejected the appeal for planning permission.

Had the planning department issued an enforcement notice, the reasonable concerns of the neighbours would have been addressed, the developer would have had clear instructions of what was to be done and at the end of the process the development would be legitimised.

Instead, nobody is happy, The development is still unlawful, the council decision is branded "perverse" and we all have to stump up for a £10,000 legal bill. What excellent planning! :0)
yawn
Somebody is happy. The lawyers who nave raked in £10 000 so far on this farce.
[quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryofHollingdean[/bold] wrote: How long would it take for a tree to grow and how much light and space would it take out of a small terraced garden? "Trees" would not block the view from the children's climbing frame or when climbing the tree, or when walking on or sitting on the wall - as children tend to do. Compare the effort and cost of planting a tree (or trees) to the effort of putting some opaque film on the offending window. Why should the victims of the developer's unlawful actions have to bear the cost of the remedy? Moreover why would the planning officers suddenly have no objection to an unlawful development having spent a lot of time and effort resisting an application for planning permission and then resisting the developers appeal to the Secretary of State. The local planning authority should have taken the enforcement action it had already decided was necessary after the Government Inspector rejected the appeal for planning permission. Had the planning department issued an enforcement notice, the reasonable concerns of the neighbours would have been addressed, the developer would have had clear instructions of what was to be done and at the end of the process the development would be legitimised. Instead, nobody is happy, The development is still unlawful, the council decision is branded "perverse" and we all have to stump up for a £10,000 legal bill. What excellent planning! :0)[/p][/quote]yawn[/p][/quote]Somebody is happy. The lawyers who nave raked in £10 000 so far on this farce. Sussex jim
  • Score: 7

5:36pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Dealing with idiots says...

At least it wasn't naked Kitcat. Yechhh.
At least it wasn't naked Kitcat. Yechhh. Dealing with idiots
  • Score: 6

6:27pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Jam1001 says...

Stop looking through peoples bathroom windows, i am sure there is a law against that.
Stop looking through peoples bathroom windows, i am sure there is a law against that. Jam1001
  • Score: -6

6:40pm Mon 24 Feb 14

stir up says...

As has been mentioned if they did not comply with the planning permission why has the house been pulled down .
We had a similar problem near to where I live (not in Brighton) and the owners had to demolish the house. They had simply applied for a small extension but doubled the size of the property.
To the person that suggest buying wooden panels let me tell you we had two blow down and it cost us £125 to have them replaced. You cannot simply just put the panels up you have to sink supports into the ground so that they are fixed properly in place
As has been mentioned if they did not comply with the planning permission why has the house been pulled down . We had a similar problem near to where I live (not in Brighton) and the owners had to demolish the house. They had simply applied for a small extension but doubled the size of the property. To the person that suggest buying wooden panels let me tell you we had two blow down and it cost us £125 to have them replaced. You cannot simply just put the panels up you have to sink supports into the ground so that they are fixed properly in place stir up
  • Score: 7

6:41pm Mon 24 Feb 14

stir up says...

sorry should read ...why had the house not been pulled down
sorry should read ...why had the house not been pulled down stir up
  • Score: 10

7:06pm Mon 24 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

I really do not see what the problem is. The structure does not comply with planning permission. No issue get the dratted thing demolished. This should not have taken 6 years. Simply apply the rules and regulations and job done!
I really do not see what the problem is. The structure does not comply with planning permission. No issue get the dratted thing demolished. This should not have taken 6 years. Simply apply the rules and regulations and job done! mimseycal
  • Score: 12

7:18pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

This council is only interested in protecting conservation areas. It is fully aware of numerous complaints about unlawful development and does nothing about it.
It you complete the required forms you don't hear a word back, despite the council promising responses and action within a set period of time.
They are hopeless. It's the same with the dog **** prosecutions, the noise abatement etc. it's time that these services were outsourced with proper financial incentives and rewards for the private providers.
This council is only interested in protecting conservation areas. It is fully aware of numerous complaints about unlawful development and does nothing about it. It you complete the required forms you don't hear a word back, despite the council promising responses and action within a set period of time. They are hopeless. It's the same with the dog **** prosecutions, the noise abatement etc. it's time that these services were outsourced with proper financial incentives and rewards for the private providers. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 7

7:53pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

mimseycal wrote:
I really do not see what the problem is. The structure does not comply with planning permission. No issue get the dratted thing demolished. This should not have taken 6 years. Simply apply the rules and regulations and job done!
I'm with you on this.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: I really do not see what the problem is. The structure does not comply with planning permission. No issue get the dratted thing demolished. This should not have taken 6 years. Simply apply the rules and regulations and job done![/p][/quote]I'm with you on this. Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 13

10:00pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Jermery says...

instead of whinging about it for six years the offended neighbours could, in the mean time, have taken their own measures. Yes, at their own flippin expense (a can of paint doesn't cost much nowadays), but if they felt so strongly about it, why on earth not paint over the offending windows? Fear of prosecution? For goodness sake! You can't fight fossilised institutions through the courts using their own rules- well, you can but it'll take six years and loads of cash. A little bit of direct action, sheeple, pleeeze?!!!!
instead of whinging about it for six years the offended neighbours could, in the mean time, have taken their own measures. Yes, at their own flippin expense (a can of paint doesn't cost much nowadays), but if they felt so strongly about it, why on earth not paint over the offending windows? Fear of prosecution? For goodness sake! You can't fight fossilised institutions through the courts using their own rules- well, you can but it'll take six years and loads of cash. A little bit of direct action, sheeple, pleeeze?!!!! Jermery
  • Score: -8

10:07am Tue 25 Feb 14

AngryofHollingdean says...

It was not the "fear" of persecution but the "threat" of prosecution for criminal damage. While it is often very tempting to take the law into one's own hands such a course of action does not always produce a useful or long lasting results and often leads to retaliation when tempers fray.

In the end the neighbours DID take the law into their own hands - after MONTHS trying to negotiate a solution, they took the council to the high court as "litigants in person". Had they hired a solicitor and a barrister the final bill to the council would have been three times as much.

Interesting point as of this morning (24 Feb 2014), BHCC is technically in contempt of court. "Out of the frying pan and...".
It was not the "fear" of persecution but the "threat" of prosecution for criminal damage. While it is often very tempting to take the law into one's own hands such a course of action does not always produce a useful or long lasting results and often leads to retaliation when tempers fray. In the end the neighbours DID take the law into their own hands - after MONTHS trying to negotiate a solution, they took the council to the high court as "litigants in person". Had they hired a solicitor and a barrister the final bill to the council would have been three times as much. Interesting point as of this morning (24 Feb 2014), BHCC is technically in contempt of court. "Out of the frying pan and...". AngryofHollingdean
  • Score: 4

11:44am Tue 25 Feb 14

Richada says...

AngryofHollingdean wrote:
It was not the "fear" of persecution but the "threat" of prosecution for criminal damage. While it is often very tempting to take the law into one's own hands such a course of action does not always produce a useful or long lasting results and often leads to retaliation when tempers fray.

In the end the neighbours DID take the law into their own hands - after MONTHS trying to negotiate a solution, they took the council to the high court as "litigants in person". Had they hired a solicitor and a barrister the final bill to the council would have been three times as much.

Interesting point as of this morning (24 Feb 2014), BHCC is technically in contempt of court. "Out of the frying pan and...".
In that case the court merely joins the rest of is in holding the Council in contempt!
[quote][p][bold]AngryofHollingdean[/bold] wrote: It was not the "fear" of persecution but the "threat" of prosecution for criminal damage. While it is often very tempting to take the law into one's own hands such a course of action does not always produce a useful or long lasting results and often leads to retaliation when tempers fray. In the end the neighbours DID take the law into their own hands - after MONTHS trying to negotiate a solution, they took the council to the high court as "litigants in person". Had they hired a solicitor and a barrister the final bill to the council would have been three times as much. Interesting point as of this morning (24 Feb 2014), BHCC is technically in contempt of court. "Out of the frying pan and...".[/p][/quote]In that case the court merely joins the rest of is in holding the Council in contempt! Richada
  • Score: 5

12:21pm Tue 25 Feb 14

paoftwo says...

“There are three girls all under 12 living nearby and when they played on their climbing frame in the garden they would see the residents going to the toilet, showering and other things that young people do in a bathroom and it is difficult to explain to these children what’s going on."
These girls don't urinate, defecate, shower or wash?
Having said that, if I was the parent of these girls I'd have had friendly words with my neighbours, even offered to pay the "£5 worth of B&Q film" myself, and then complained to the property owners. (But my girls were brought up to see nothing wrong with the human body so they'd probably have giggled the first time and then ignored them.)
“There are three girls all under 12 living nearby and when they played on their climbing frame in the garden they would see the residents going to the toilet, showering and other things that young people do in a bathroom and it is difficult to explain to these children what’s going on." These girls don't urinate, defecate, shower or wash? Having said that, if I was the parent of these girls I'd have had friendly words with my neighbours, even offered to pay the "£5 worth of B&Q film" myself, and then complained to the property owners. (But my girls were brought up to see nothing wrong with the human body so they'd probably have giggled the first time and then ignored them.) paoftwo
  • Score: -7

2:46pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AngryofHollingdean says...

paoftwo wrote:
“There are three girls all under 12 living nearby and when they played on their climbing frame in the garden they would see the residents going to the toilet, showering and other things that young people do in a bathroom and it is difficult to explain to these children what’s going on."
These girls don't urinate, defecate, shower or wash?
Having said that, if I was the parent of these girls I'd have had friendly words with my neighbours, even offered to pay the "£5 worth of B&Q film" myself, and then complained to the property owners. (But my girls were brought up to see nothing wrong with the human body so they'd probably have giggled the first time and then ignored them.)
"Having said that, if I was the parent of these girls I'd have had friendly words with my neighbours, even offered to pay the "£5 worth of B&Q film" myself, and then complained to the property owners"...

And what makes one think that that wasn't done? Does anyone really think the three sets of neighbouring families would have gone to the high court to pursue the claim as litigants in person (no lawyer) if all it took was a quick knock at the door, a polite discussion and the exchange of a roll of opaque window film to sort it all out? It was precisely because ALL the "normal" efforts over 6 years failed to rectify the problem that the case was bought before the court.
[quote][p][bold]paoftwo[/bold] wrote: “There are three girls all under 12 living nearby and when they played on their climbing frame in the garden they would see the residents going to the toilet, showering and other things that young people do in a bathroom and it is difficult to explain to these children what’s going on." These girls don't urinate, defecate, shower or wash? Having said that, if I was the parent of these girls I'd have had friendly words with my neighbours, even offered to pay the "£5 worth of B&Q film" myself, and then complained to the property owners. (But my girls were brought up to see nothing wrong with the human body so they'd probably have giggled the first time and then ignored them.)[/p][/quote]"Having said that, if I was the parent of these girls I'd have had friendly words with my neighbours, even offered to pay the "£5 worth of B&Q film" myself, and then complained to the property owners"... And what makes one think that that wasn't done? Does anyone really think the three sets of neighbouring families would have gone to the high court to pursue the claim as litigants in person (no lawyer) if all it took was a quick knock at the door, a polite discussion and the exchange of a roll of opaque window film to sort it all out? It was precisely because ALL the "normal" efforts over 6 years failed to rectify the problem that the case was bought before the court. AngryofHollingdean
  • Score: 5

4:44pm Tue 25 Feb 14

melee says...

I did think the same about not being able to explain to under 12s what goes on in a bathroom, after all they surely use a bathroom themselves. Then I wondered if the 'other things' might be a coy reference to something else that adults might do together in the shower (or possibly alone!).
I did think the same about not being able to explain to under 12s what goes on in a bathroom, after all they surely use a bathroom themselves. Then I wondered if the 'other things' might be a coy reference to something else that adults might do together in the shower (or possibly alone!). melee
  • Score: 4

2:06am Wed 26 Feb 14

Brighton Visitor says...

Shouldn't be looking in the windows anyway.

There is such a thing as privacy in their own home.
Shouldn't be looking in the windows anyway. There is such a thing as privacy in their own home. Brighton Visitor
  • Score: -9

9:25am Wed 26 Feb 14

bluemonday says...

has anybody actually knocked on the door and mentioned it to the occupiers and asked them to cover the glass.
has anybody actually knocked on the door and mentioned it to the occupiers and asked them to cover the glass. bluemonday
  • Score: -5

2:28pm Wed 26 Feb 14

AngryofHollingdean says...

Yes, every month for almost a year about 6 years ago and then once a year since until this December.

And yes (2 above) the "coy reference" was to something else that adults do. Knowingly allowing a child to observe "something else that adults do" is a serious offence. I presume that even the most liberal among us probably draws the line at that point.
Yes, every month for almost a year about 6 years ago and then once a year since until this December. And yes (2 above) the "coy reference" was to something else that adults do. Knowingly allowing a child to observe "something else that adults do" is a serious offence. I presume that even the most liberal among us probably draws the line at that point. AngryofHollingdean
  • Score: 8

8:36am Thu 27 Feb 14

Juleyanne says...

So predictable in this newspaper. Anything about nudity or likewise subjects will attract more comments than any other more newsworthy subject.
So predictable in this newspaper. Anything about nudity or likewise subjects will attract more comments than any other more newsworthy subject. Juleyanne
  • Score: -4

10:36am Thu 27 Feb 14

Richada says...

Juleyanne wrote:
So predictable in this newspaper. Anything about nudity or likewise subjects will attract more comments than any other more newsworthy subject.
I think you'll find that any story involving Jason Kitcat, the Greens or the i360 (or all three!) are more popular here (for commentators at least) than stories involving nudity - of which this is the only one that I've read here during the last month.

As far as most of us are concerned this is a story highlighting a gross breach of planning consent, leading to a flagrant waste of taxpayers money, the "nudity issue" is a bit of a sprat to catch a mackerel here.
[quote][p][bold]Juleyanne[/bold] wrote: So predictable in this newspaper. Anything about nudity or likewise subjects will attract more comments than any other more newsworthy subject.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that any story involving Jason Kitcat, the Greens or the i360 (or all three!) are more popular here (for commentators at least) than stories involving nudity - of which this is the only one that I've read here during the last month. As far as most of us are concerned this is a story highlighting a gross breach of planning consent, leading to a flagrant waste of taxpayers money, the "nudity issue" is a bit of a sprat to catch a mackerel here. Richada
  • Score: 4

12:23pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Patsyr says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
I often see my neighbour naked through her bedroom window. Well, I say "neighbour", she lives two streets away. I sometimes have to wait in a tree all night to catch a glimpse. When will the council do something about this? It's disgusting. Any old pervert could just climb over her wall, shin up a forty foot tree, get a pair of binoculars out and watch her getting undressed at night. And take photos.
This is a stupid post and is making light of the residents who can see a neighbour using the toilet from their garden.
Generally people would be embarrassed by this and particularly when children are playing.
The residents in this reported situation do not need to climb a tree or use binoculars but can just see into their neighbours bathroom.
Must say I think that the neighbours using the bathroom knowing they will be observed must be a pervert or an exhibitionist- or both.
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: I often see my neighbour naked through her bedroom window. Well, I say "neighbour", she lives two streets away. I sometimes have to wait in a tree all night to catch a glimpse. When will the council do something about this? It's disgusting. Any old pervert could just climb over her wall, shin up a forty foot tree, get a pair of binoculars out and watch her getting undressed at night. And take photos.[/p][/quote]This is a stupid post and is making light of the residents who can see a neighbour using the toilet from their garden. Generally people would be embarrassed by this and particularly when children are playing. The residents in this reported situation do not need to climb a tree or use binoculars but can just see into their neighbours bathroom. Must say I think that the neighbours using the bathroom knowing they will be observed must be a pervert or an exhibitionist- or both. Patsyr
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree