The judge said she had heard detailed submissions about the problems caused by the property and was satisfied the claimants had “genuine, legitimate” concerns.
She awarded the claimants 75 per cent of their £6,000 court costs.
Why? They shouldn’t have
needed to bring this action, so why should they have to pay anything?
The council, which had conceded its decision was “legally flawed”, said the four-year time limit for enforcement had expired.
It claimed that the court should not make any finding of unlawfulness because it had since persuaded the owner of the offending property to fit opaque plastic film on two ground floor bathroom windows.
The judge pointed out that the upstairs bathroom window still had clear glass, as did other windows.
Ordering the council to reconsider its decision, she said: “I have concluded the defendant’s decision was perverse, in all the circumstances, and that the planning officers concerned failed to have proper regard to relevant factors.”
That’s the public sector for you. And I bet they are all still in a job.
Rather than taking out a court case the neighbours should have arranged some 'come and watch' parties.
ReplyDeleteI take it that their kids never go to the beach in Brighton then.
ReplyDelete..And because it was rented out, the tenants didn’t care about who could see them taking a shower..
ReplyDeleteWhat is she trying to say?
"...the neighbours should have arranged some 'come and watch' parties."
ReplyDeleteStatic dogging - it's The New Thing!
"What is she trying to say?"
Yeah, I rather struggled with that one, too!