Dizzy Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Ah so it is nice fencing then ... gosh I was clearly getting all confused again as I've only ever seen the big metal building works ones there. I need to get out more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latchford Locks Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 It is Park style black railing,similar to all the flood defence rails that are being erected.OK ..Is everyone happy now ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Depends if the tyres are removed or not and if the silly man still has to pay costs to the council for all the time and money his little game has cost.I wonder who has paid for and put up the 'Park style back railings similar to the flood defence walls' on the blokes land though. He's a jammy sod if the Environment agency has paid for it all for him. Do they get their money from us ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Do they get their money from us ? one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 I read his response along with some of his friends on the Guardian page and clearly this guy has some serious personality disorders to put it mildly. , It's his dumping of old tyres here and the way it was done that's the issue and It really doesn’t matter what good he may have done elsewhere, he's not God and even if he was he'd still be out of order! He claims that they are now "legal" but again that's not the issue. He created a public outcry and ignored it basically claming the place was already a dump so it didn't matter. That's like trying to justify littering on the grounds that the place is already untidy then offering to pick up just some of the stuff. The council is 100% right in attempting to sort out this arrogant self righteous character. Bill 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 I agree with you Bill...... after all; Jimmy Saville did a lot of charity work.....didn't make his other actions any more palatable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Well said Bill. I wonder if the Crown Cout court case actually went ahead on Friday (6th Feb) after he appealed the Magistrates Court decision last time. It was supposed to be heard in November but was posponed.Shame that as they tyre wall was still up in it's entirety when it should have been heard so chances are he would have had to pay up then. Hope he still has to !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latchford Locks Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 With an election looming on the horizon I wonder if any of our pottential MP's could take up the case and try to get some Brownie points ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Surely it's upto the courts now..... unless of course the council have now dropped the case with it been lowered recently etc. If they have dropped it I doubt they could then change their mind and open it again even if the 'hopeful' MP's said owt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Regardless as to whether the wall is now lower, the council should carry on and pursue this joker through the courts and make sure he gets a fine and or prison deserving of the trouble he has caused. 18 months in prison minimum and a good £50,000 fine would be about right, plus all costs.... oh and the complete removal of all tyres and any future fence must be of a certain standard as deemed fit by the council Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Result is now reported in the Guardian. Suspect the council are out of pocket on this. Recovered costs not likely to cover costs expended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 At least he's been ordered to pay £15k in fines & costs and I hope he's not a rich man and that amount hits him where it hurts. Well done to the council and to the judge, good outcome in my opinion unless he's a rich man of course and that amount means nothing to him. I wonder how much his own solicitors bills are or whether he defended himself.Shame that the tyres can stay now though as they still look a mess even at the reduced height but perhaps Mr Awkward will remove them all now that he has permission to have them there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 So he's had to pay out £15,000 in fines which is good but to him I suppose it's a small price to pay to save face or claim some kind of perverse sense of victory over the council. As a businessman with interests in the area, he's not exactly doing much to build relationships with either the council or the public so I think it's fair to say that while he may have the money, he hasn't got much idea how to run a business. If the tyre wall is now classed as legal and there's nothing that anyone can do about it legally, it remains to be seen if anyone decides to take matter into their own hands because given the strength of feelings, that wouldn't surprise me. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 I don't think he's succeeded in saving face or claiming any sort of victory over the council at all Bill. All he's left with after all the trouble he's casued is a single row of tyres and a heafty bill for his stubournness and like you say he's also got himself a bad name with regards to residents far and wide. He clearly knew he wouldn't win the final court case which is why he dropped the level below 1 metre so even that shows what a stubourn pillock he is as he could have done that on day one when the council origionally contacted him.He's made himself look a complete and utter arrogant and self centred pratt but then that was obvious from the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Apparently the Government consulted in 2003 on whether the general permitted right to erect a fence below 1m (next to a highway) should be amended to exclude enclosures made of waste material - such as used tyres. No amendments were made (no idea why not) so it's legal (I suppose the courts could still say it isn't but we'd be gambling with the possible costs in finding out). He's appealing against the costs order, which should add to his costs.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Sounds like he appeals about anything and everything that the courts say. Is there a limit to how many times someone can appeal about a court ruling or could it go on for ever?Steve re: your other comment about permitted rights to erect fences under 1m from waste material, what constitutes waste material or can it be anything ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Maybe the council should just employ some people in balaclavas to just turn up and take all the tyres away and dump them on his lawn.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 no need to have balaclavas wagon with a crane and a copup,le of guys in high viz with clipboard and nobody would be any the wiser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 Sounds like he appeals about anything and everything that the courts say. Is there a limit to how many times someone can appeal about a court ruling or could it go on for ever? Steve re: your other comment about permitted rights to erect fences under 1m from waste material, what constitutes waste material or can it be anything ? The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 allows (without planning consent) "The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure" (up to 2m, or 1m "adjacent to a highway"). In Selby, the local authority took enforcement action, based on harm to rural amenity, against the use of bunds up to 2 metres high and made of compressed tyre casings to enclose agricultural fields traditionally bounded by hedgerows. However, on appeal, despite the unconventional materials used, these bales were considered to be a means of enclosure falling within Part 2 permitted development and no action could be taken. Selby council didn't take the inspector to judicial review (would you want us to run a six-figure bill to test it in the courts?) so the government did a consultation on possible changes (to a whole host of things in the GPDO), one of which was, "to limit the types of the materials used for ‘means of enclosure’ to ‘conventional/traditional materials’...; interpretation should specifically exclude waste and certain types of materials such as old car tyres and define what conventional/traditional excludes or includes". I've not yet discovered (11 years later) why the change was not made. Frankly it's a legal nonsense. I don't want to give Mr Moran any ideas, but: https://bobmang.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/cycling-day-5-of-yak-dung-walls-yak-bling-and-interesting-people/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.