A senior councillor has refused to say why he intervened over plans to expand a mosque.So, who objected?
The proposal by Chingford Islamic Society, based in Chingford Mount Road, Chingford, was turned down by planning officers.
...Cllr Akram, cabinet member for business and representative of Lea Bridge ward, stepped in to ensure the application would be considered by the planning committee...Oooh, yeah. It's a real mystery, isn't it?
They can consider it again, natch. And hopefully come to the same conclusion as before.
ReplyDeleteThe councillor can go and stand for election in Islamabad if he doesn't like it. No planning worries there, hey?
In fact, I hear there's a nice building in Abbotabad that could make a good mosque.
The way it works is they keep re-applying for planning until people get fed up of objecting.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest I'm with the muzzies on this. Ever wanted to extend and enquired if a tree you want to remove has a preservation order on it? Ever been told that yes it has, and on further enquiry found that the TPO has existed only since the day you made the fucking call to ask if there was one? Planning officers' raison d'être is to boss you, me and everybody else about over what we're allowed to do with our land that we've paid for, and generally wipe their arses with our property rights. They make Alky Ada seem like a reasonable bunch by comparison.
ReplyDeleteLet 'em build their mosque if they want. And let the property owners either side build a massive drive through 24 hour bottle shop and a pork specialist abattoir if that's what they want.
Anyone reported him to the Standards Board for England yet?
ReplyDeleteCllr Akram doesn't need to explain himself when commonsense dictates that new planning submissions simply respect local architecture.
ReplyDeleteIn Huddersfield, the Council are pretty strict with regards to certain roof characteristics. Proposals that fail to conform with standard dome construction are met with furious indignation.
I'd like to see the building expanded in the same way that one in Abbottabad was.
ReplyDeleteApparently OBL's house in Abbotabad was called "Dun Roamin" ...
ReplyDeleteAnd was situated in "5.56 Street" ..
I've heard that the US Navy SEALS offered him an ice cream .. to which he replied .. "I want topping with that" ..
You are quite witty today, Captain Haddock. Have you considered joining the police whilst it lasts?
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm sure that the good councillor has good reason, hasn't he? Like keeping his ethnic voters happy and sod the host community.
ReplyDelete"The councillor can go and stand for election in Islamabad if he doesn't like it. No planning worries there, hey?
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I hear there's a nice building in Abbotabad that could make a good mosque."
:D
"Let 'em build their mosque if they want."
And if their neighbours don't want..?
How much public money should be spent on this war of attrition, as Budvar points out?
"Oh, I'm sure that the good councillor has good reason, hasn't he? Like keeping his ethnic voters happy and sod the host community."
Pretty soon, the objectors will decide to find pastures new (those that can afford to, anyway) and another little enclave is slowly built.
"And if their neighbours don't want..? "
ReplyDeleteDoesn't enter into it as far as I'm concerned, but you already know I'm pretty absolutist when it comes to property rights. I wouldn't want my neighbour to build either a mosque, a ten story statue of Pammy Anderson or a chicken coop, but the thing is it's his land. Or at least it's supposed to be, but if me and the other locals get a say over what he can do with it then really it isn't his land at all. It's some kind of communal arrangement where we all have a limited veto over his use of the property and get to decide for him. It's like eminent domain and compulsory purchase, except he's neither evicted nor compensated for not being allowed to use his property. To me it's a form of state approved theft..
What's good for the goose is good for the gander so, like I said, if they want a bigger mosque on land for which they've paid the agreed sum it's up to them, just as it would be entirely for their neighbours if they wanted to build something that the mosque's owners would find deeply offensive. Given current events and inspired by the mad NMA video, a giant statue of a naked Osama bin Laden in hell being gang raped in the arse by pigs and possibly playing America The Beautiful at mind splitting volume during the call to prayer.
I wouldn't want to live near that either, but I'd prefer it to another layer of government weenies who are paid with our fucking taxes telling us all what we may and may not do with land that fucking belongs to us. Some followers of an illiberal religion (is there another kind) wanting a bigger room for talking to their version of the big sky man in is frankly the lesser evil.
PS - it should go without saying that while people should be free to do absolutely whatever they want with their property that doesn't mean there should be no consequences. If person B can show some kind of financial loss as a result of what person A has built on his property then by all means B should be compensated. The guideline should be that a wise property owner should be careful not to build something that someone else can bankrupt him over in a tort case.
ReplyDeleteWell done Melvin,a thread about planning applications and you managed to turn it into another anti-police dig. I think you need to get out more.
ReplyDeleteJaded
Calm yourself, Dearie and try a simpler writing style. Better thought of as a fool than prove it by stumbling on your own double negatives.
ReplyDelete