A response to bureaucracy!

[EOS_User]

I had occasion to visit Jersey, Channel Islands a few weeks ago, and since I hadn't been there for some 30 years decided to take some time to re-visit...

For those who haven't been; it's a very pleasant short-stay vacation island. The islanders pride themselves in keeping the place absolutely pristine; it's pretty well spotless. You rarely find any sign of dereliction or decay, so when I came across this property it was a surprise, and then I saw the signs...

Disclaimer; the following images have little in the way of photographic merit; they're for entertainment only!

1. The house;



2. The 1st sign...



3. The 2nd sign...



4. Nothing that a lick of paint and a bit of pointing won't put right...



5. And just to make a point; this was left firmly in the middle of the front garden...



TTFN...

[ctrollen]

Re: A response to bureaucracy!

I'm surprised they haven't made him take the signs down

ps. I quite like the photo of the wheelbarrow, but you could have got all of the handles in!

[colin C]

Re: A response to bureaucracy!

Good for him.

I love it when the little guy takes on the bureaucrats. Little bit of press coverage would help his cause and with those signed, he may just get it.

[TonyT]

Re: A response to bureaucracy!

The sad thing is these little Hitlers have destroyed his life, and for what?
It reminds me of a house I know that had a preservation order slapped on it, because it had sixties naff plastic guttering on it they were wanting it replacing with like for like, the owner wanted to remove it, tidy up the layout and restore it to cast iron as the house would have worn in its heyday, but was hitting a brick wall trying to get approval, it annoys me because a home is an ongoing development and these people seem to think It has to stick in a time warp, often incorporating some really sad and bodged cheap shoddy work, fair enough stop any major changes such as totally changing the building, but replacing rotten timbers etc as long as it retains the integrity and character of the original building should be allowed.

My mums house was an old cottage that was part of the staff living quarters for a larger house and faced onto what was a courtyard which had a chapel on one side and stables opposite, it made me cringe that the original plank wooden doors in it had been covered with a plywood sheet and some naff edge bead to bring them into 60's fashion, try as I might I couldn't convince her to take them back to how the house was.

[John Liddle]

Re: A response to bureaucracy!

Our house is originally mediaeval, but has a date-stamp on it of 1637. It is Grade II listed, so we have had dealings with the Conservation Officer in the past, when we wanted to open up a covered-over fireplace. The previous owner of the house had fought Pyrrhic wars with them, but I think that was mainly down to his attitude. I decided to invite the lady round as soon as we had moved in and let her see the whole of the house and talked about what we might be allowed to do. I did wring a useful admission from her, that "minor maintenance replacing like with like was OK" - I have interpreted that fairly flexibly on some occasions! When we came to seek permission for the fireplace work, I think that initial approach paid dividends and we were able to go ahead. I also invited her to see the end result, so that she would know that we had stuck to the proposed plan - another investment for the future.

I know that Tony's tale of obstinacy is not untypical, but there is a balance to be struck between the desire to retain examples of old buildings as they were originally and the need to show how buildings develop and evolve - it is not a task I would enjoy! I see exactly the same mindsets in the vintage vehicle field, where there are always skirmishes between the "rivet counters" and those who accept the vehicle as it has now become after a life or use and modification/repair and just want to enjoy it as it is.

So, no easy answers in my view, but I have to say that expending a bit of time and indulging in a few pleasantries at the outset is very worthwhile.

[Swanny48]

Re: A response to bureaucracy!

It does annoy me when people put up articles like this on a forum, Facebook or whatever and people who have no knowledge of what's happened then spout off their uninformed opinions without knowing both sides of the story. There are two sides to every item like this.

John

[John Liddle]

Re: A response to bureaucracy!

There are two sides to every item like this.

John

That is what I was trying to hint at...........

[TonyT]

Re: A response to bureaucracy!

The reasoning behind it

Mr Barette says the windows he removed were rotting, and he only wanted to make the property better insulated and habitable.

Since posting pictures of his protest banners online 48 hours ago, hundreds of people have shared his story and added comments to his Facebook page.

The planning department say it's important people follow the rules, which are there for a reason.
15 windows of the farmhouse have been removed. At ground floor level, the floor boards, the ground floors, the wall finishes, the ceilings, fire places, the doors, the architraves, the skirting boards and all the internal walls have been removed.

– JERSEY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
In the official historic listed building directory, Broughton Lodge Farm is described as a "good example of 18th century farmhouse with later dower wing, with unusual floor plan, and courtyard of early 19th century outbuildings.

http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2016-12-15/jersey-planning-row-intensifies-as-man-puts-signs-on-house-in-protest/

He then went on with it.

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2016/12/16/claim-that-planning-fine-means-no-money-for-work-2/

Seems he applied for permission to do the bits, it was refused so he did it anyway.. Seems like his own fault.

[John Liddle]

Re: A response to bureaucracy!

Seems he applied for permission to do the bits, it was refused so he did it anyway.. Seems like his own fault.

If the reports on those links are accurate (and I have no reason to doubt them) the man is clearly an idiot who got no more than he deserved

[colin C]

Re: A response to bureaucracy!

If the reports on those links are accurate (and I have no reason to doubt them) the man is clearly an idiot who got no more than he deserved

Oh .......... and I so much wanted to support the underdog. As it appears he has a Masters Degree in idiocy, I withdraw my vote.