Since Charnwood Borough Council have admitted that they have made various administrative mistakes including the approval for us to build the barn and the approval of the detailed plans and elevations, should they be responsible for the costs of the barn's construction, the appeal enquiry, its demolition and our farms loss of profit due to loss of our secure building ?
I cant get my head around this. Are you saying that the local authority gave you permission to build the barn and told you to demolish it after it was built ? If that is the case then they should pay all your costs.
I think the barn looks great. This is a classic case of NIMBYism from some misguided folk.
Also- how can a council give permission and then change their mind AFTER somebody builds something. There must be legal redress as the farmer clearly relied on the councils earlier decision before he spent all that money.
I find this whole business shocking!! For a farmer to invest in the area, bring business and 'put back' a little heritage is exactly what the local councils should be encouraging for economic redevelopment. You should get Countryfile involved and Im sure the support that would follow over the mis-treatment would be overwhelming. This is a rural issue too and such use of land should be encouraged. How can any council justify its constituents loss of £300,000 which would be some farmers profit margin for ten years resulting in yet another national treasure forced onto the dole.
(09-09-2009 03:43 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]I think the barn looks great. This is a classic case of NIMBYism from some misguided folk.
Also- how can a council give permission and then change their mind AFTER somebody builds something. There must be legal redress as the farmer clearly relied on the councils earlier decision before he spent all that money.
I agree completely.
(09-09-2009 03:43 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]I think the barn looks great. This is a classic case of NIMBYism from some misguided folk.
Also- how can a council give permission and then change their mind AFTER somebody builds something. There must be legal redress as the farmer clearly relied on the councils earlier decision before he spent all that money.
When the original enforcement order was issued in November 2008 it clearly stated thet any further building would be at Mr Whites cost, he continued to build. So is it the Councils fault more more money than neceassary was spent?
(10-09-2009 08:56 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ] (09-09-2009 03:43 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]I think the barn looks great. This is a classic case of NIMBYism from some misguided folk.
Also- how can a council give permission and then change their mind AFTER somebody builds something. There must be legal redress as the farmer clearly relied on the councils earlier decision before he spent all that money.
When the original enforcement order was issued in November 2008 it clearly stated thet any further building would be at Mr Whites cost, he continued to build. So is it the Councils fault more more money than neceassary was spent?
Hello anonymous. Your point is valid however there are a number of issues that you need to understand in answer to this :
(1) The Slate roof was already being laid on the roof and the barn doors were already being delivered.
(2) We had signed contracts in place for the above works to be undertaken and were responsible to complete and pay for those contracts.
(3) If the roof had not been completed then the timbers in the roof would have become damaged by the weather. There is a substantial amount of softwood timber in the roof structure as well as the oak frame. Whilst the oak frame would not likely be badly damaged, the rest of the softwood structure would.
(4) We have over £50,000 worth of agricultural equipment that had to be dry stored. The equipments existing storage place was to become unavailable as within just a few weeks of the enforcement notice being issued. This is big expensive agricultural machinery and equipment that cannot be left outdoors to rot. Apart from the machinery being extensively damaged by leaving it outside, there is also the serious risk of theft.
For all of the above rasons it was critical that the remainder of the slate works were completed and the doors fitted. In fact the building was almost complete by the time the enforcement notice was issued. That can be seen from the photographs in the complaint letter sent to the Council yesterday.
The building is still not completed. We have not put in the concrete floor sections, there are no windows, there is no insulation in the staff office areas, there is no electricity or water. As soon as the roof was on and the doors fitted to make the building secure we stopped work.
typical local authority screwup. bet they wont cough up.
It seems pretty obvious that Charnwood blindly rubber-stamped your application in a positive fashion encouraging you to go ahead. If in hindsight they want to reverse their decision, fine, but full compensation should be awarded: Refunds on all applications: On all capital and professional expenditure, losses, both past present and future and your professional time concerned in trying to resolve all related matters. CBC should also refund on the land and bear the ownership themselves. Twould make a nice little council depot.........
They should, but I bet they wont. Councils never admit liability for their mistakes.