Interfering Busybodies.
Discussion
Why cant Natural England f
k off and leave the guy alone?
k off and leave the guy alone?EDP24 said:
A retired engineer has been dealt a blow in his battle to prevent his home from falling into the North Sea after an appeal was upheld.
Conservation watchdog Natural England has today won an appeal against a court judgment to allow the cliffs below Peter Boggis' home at Easton Bavents, near Southwold, to erode naturally.
Since 2002, the 78-year-old has spent tens of thousands of pounds installing his own “soft” sea defences built of 250,000 tonnes of compacted clay soil in front of the cliffs near his home.
The work was carried out without planning permission and the Court of Appeal said today that the only lawful course open to Mr Boggis and other members of Easton Bavents Conservation was to apply for permission and go through the correct planning process.
Mr Boggis, whose house, The Warren, is 302ft from the cliff edge, says his sea defences have so far saved more than eight acres of land and four properties “at no cost to the nation”.
He wants to be allowed to maintain his defences to prevent further erosion of the cliffs.
In 2006, Natural England notified a coastal Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) between Southwold in the south and Kessingland in the north.
In the High Court, Mr Justice Blair said the evidence showed that part of the intention of the SSSI was to allow the destruction of Mr Boggis' defences and the rapid erosion of the cliffs behind them.
He said: “I am not unsympathetic to the plight of Mr Boggis and the other residents who can see the cliff face remorselessly approaching the boundaries of their properties.
“But they were aiming at the wrong target in challenging the SSSI. The lawful course would be to apply for planning permission and coastal protection consent so that all material considerations, including their human rights and the SSSI, could be taken into account.”
Conservation watchdog Natural England has today won an appeal against a court judgment to allow the cliffs below Peter Boggis' home at Easton Bavents, near Southwold, to erode naturally.
Since 2002, the 78-year-old has spent tens of thousands of pounds installing his own “soft” sea defences built of 250,000 tonnes of compacted clay soil in front of the cliffs near his home.
The work was carried out without planning permission and the Court of Appeal said today that the only lawful course open to Mr Boggis and other members of Easton Bavents Conservation was to apply for permission and go through the correct planning process.
Mr Boggis, whose house, The Warren, is 302ft from the cliff edge, says his sea defences have so far saved more than eight acres of land and four properties “at no cost to the nation”.
He wants to be allowed to maintain his defences to prevent further erosion of the cliffs.
In 2006, Natural England notified a coastal Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) between Southwold in the south and Kessingland in the north.
In the High Court, Mr Justice Blair said the evidence showed that part of the intention of the SSSI was to allow the destruction of Mr Boggis' defences and the rapid erosion of the cliffs behind them.
He said: “I am not unsympathetic to the plight of Mr Boggis and the other residents who can see the cliff face remorselessly approaching the boundaries of their properties.
“But they were aiming at the wrong target in challenging the SSSI. The lawful course would be to apply for planning permission and coastal protection consent so that all material considerations, including their human rights and the SSSI, could be taken into account.”
Liar said:
He said: “I am not unsympathetic to the plight of Mr Boggis and the other residents who can see the cliff face remorselessly approaching the boundaries of their properties.
Well I don't believe that for a second!I bet he wouldn't be announcing he was letting his house fall into the sea if the tables were turned!
EDLT said:
I agree with them, fk those people and their homes trying to control erosion is like playing god with rocks.
Right, I'm willing to propose a televised boxing match between EDLT and that thug who used to advertise a Cuprinol masonry weather-protection product - you remember the advert, which left you with the distinct impression that if you didn't go out and buy some immediately, not only would your house dissolve but he'd be round - personally - to give you a good kicking. Because it says so on the tin.k those people and their homes trying to control erosion is like playing god with rocks.At least I think it was Cuprinol. Anyway - the boxing match.
I suspect it might go a little bit like this:
Referee: Ding Ding: Seconds Out
EDLT: (in a thin, high, wavering voice). Nooo...right...protecting your house from the elements is like...evil...man. I live in a teepee, and it's totally green, and..
Thug: <Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack>......<Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack>
EDLT: <bleeding from the head>...and...um...<starts to cry>
Thug: <Smack><Smack>...<dance><dance>....<Smack><Smack><Smack>...<dance>
EDLT: <bleeding very heavily from the head>...aaaa...mummy
Thug: <Forces EDLT to drink a litre of Cuprinol Brick Preserver, and throws a match down EDLT's throat>
EDLT: <Explodes, showering the crowd in shredded tree hugger>
From which we can learn:
1) Don't mess with that thug from the brick-preserver advert. Because it says so on the tin.
2) Don't mess with people who don't want their houses simply to dissolve just because EDLT thinks you shouldn't mess with nature...like.
EDP24 said:
Since 2002, the 78-year-old has spent tens of thousands of pounds installing his own “soft” sea defences built of 250,000 tonnes of compacted clay soil in front of the cliffs near his home.
Then he's an idiot.Why shouldn't he have to apply for planning? It's not like the erosion has come as a surprise, and no doubt his house was cheaper as a consequence. This is no different IMO to people moving into houses near airports and race circuits and complaining about the noise.
It's a curious pursuit when much of that part of England is built on reclaimed/drained land anyway.
But ah yes, that took place in the past when our ancestors were noble and at one with the land... But we can't do it today because we're evil and must never change, manipulate or challenge our environment.
If they really did want to maintain Britain's true natural state then the whole place should be heavily forested. Everywhere. With Bears and Wolves running about.
But ah yes, that took place in the past when our ancestors were noble and at one with the land... But we can't do it today because we're evil and must never change, manipulate or challenge our environment.
If they really did want to maintain Britain's true natural state then the whole place should be heavily forested. Everywhere. With Bears and Wolves running about.
Dunk76 said:
It's a curious pursuit when much of that part of England is built on reclaimed/drained land anyway.
But ah yes, that took place in the past when our ancestors were noble and at one with the land... But we can't do it today because we're evil and must never change, manipulate or challenge our environment.
If they really did want to maintain Britain's true natural state then the whole place should be heavily forested. Everywhere. With Bears and Wolves running about.
ah but surely it depends on when you consider it to be in it's natural state, it was once under a glacierBut ah yes, that took place in the past when our ancestors were noble and at one with the land... But we can't do it today because we're evil and must never change, manipulate or challenge our environment.
If they really did want to maintain Britain's true natural state then the whole place should be heavily forested. Everywhere. With Bears and Wolves running about.
B Oeuf said:
Dunk76 said:
It's a curious pursuit when much of that part of England is built on reclaimed/drained land anyway.
But ah yes, that took place in the past when our ancestors were noble and at one with the land... But we can't do it today because we're evil and must never change, manipulate or challenge our environment.
If they really did want to maintain Britain's true natural state then the whole place should be heavily forested. Everywhere. With Bears and Wolves running about.
ah but surely it depends on when you consider it to be in it's natural state, it was once under a glacierBut ah yes, that took place in the past when our ancestors were noble and at one with the land... But we can't do it today because we're evil and must never change, manipulate or challenge our environment.
If they really did want to maintain Britain's true natural state then the whole place should be heavily forested. Everywhere. With Bears and Wolves running about.
Before that, the surface was molten.
turbobloke said:
B Oeuf said:
Dunk76 said:
It's a curious pursuit when much of that part of England is built on reclaimed/drained land anyway.
But ah yes, that took place in the past when our ancestors were noble and at one with the land... But we can't do it today because we're evil and must never change, manipulate or challenge our environment.
If they really did want to maintain Britain's true natural state then the whole place should be heavily forested. Everywhere. With Bears and Wolves running about.
ah but surely it depends on when you consider it to be in it's natural state, it was once under a glacierBut ah yes, that took place in the past when our ancestors were noble and at one with the land... But we can't do it today because we're evil and must never change, manipulate or challenge our environment.
If they really did want to maintain Britain's true natural state then the whole place should be heavily forested. Everywhere. With Bears and Wolves running about.
Before that, the surface was molten.
It's no different from the Bronze Age inhabitants of this land clearing trees so they could grow crops.
I don't pretend to know all the details, but hasn't he made a bloody great mess of an otherwise nice beach without gaining permission?
There's lots of things one (rightly) isn't allowed to do to land without gaining permission, and piling 250,000 tonnes of soil onto a sandy beach doesn't sound like an unreasonable one to add to the list to me.
There's lots of things one (rightly) isn't allowed to do to land without gaining permission, and piling 250,000 tonnes of soil onto a sandy beach doesn't sound like an unreasonable one to add to the list to me.
eharding said:
EDLT said:
I agree with them, fk those people and their homes trying to control erosion is like playing god with rocks.
Right, I'm willing to propose a televised boxing match between EDLT and that thug who used to advertise a Cuprinol masonry weather-protection product - you remember the advert, which left you with the distinct impression that if you didn't go out and buy some immediately, not only would your house dissolve but he'd be round - personally - to give you a good kicking. Because it says so on the tin.k those people and their homes trying to control erosion is like playing god with rocks.At least I think it was Cuprinol. Anyway - the boxing match.
I suspect it might go a little bit like this:
Referee: Ding Ding: Seconds Out
EDLT: (in a thin, high, wavering voice). Nooo...right...protecting your house from the elements is like...evil...man. I live in a teepee, and it's totally green, and..
Thug: <Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack>......<Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack>
EDLT: <bleeding from the head>...and...um...<starts to cry>
Thug: <Smack><Smack>...<dance><dance>....<Smack><Smack><Smack>...<dance>
EDLT: <bleeding very heavily from the head>...aaaa...mummy
Thug: <Forces EDLT to drink a litre of Cuprinol Brick Preserver, and throws a match down EDLT's throat>
EDLT: <Explodes, showering the crowd in shredded tree hugger>
From which we can learn:
1) Don't mess with that thug from the brick-preserver advert. Because it says so on the tin.
2) Don't mess with people who don't want their houses simply to dissolve just because EDLT thinks you shouldn't mess with nature...like.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony
EDLT said:
eharding said:
EDLT said:
I agree with them, fk those people and their homes trying to control erosion is like playing god with rocks.
Right, I'm willing to propose a televised boxing match between EDLT and that thug who used to advertise a Cuprinol masonry weather-protection product - you remember the advert, which left you with the distinct impression that if you didn't go out and buy some immediately, not only would your house dissolve but he'd be round - personally - to give you a good kicking. Because it says so on the tin.k those people and their homes trying to control erosion is like playing god with rocks.At least I think it was Cuprinol. Anyway - the boxing match.
I suspect it might go a little bit like this:
Referee: Ding Ding: Seconds Out
EDLT: (in a thin, high, wavering voice). Nooo...right...protecting your house from the elements is like...evil...man. I live in a teepee, and it's totally green, and..
Thug: <Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack>......<Smack><Smack><Smack><Smack>
EDLT: <bleeding from the head>...and...um...<starts to cry>
Thug: <Smack><Smack>...<dance><dance>....<Smack><Smack><Smack>...<dance>
EDLT: <bleeding very heavily from the head>...aaaa...mummy
Thug: <Forces EDLT to drink a litre of Cuprinol Brick Preserver, and throws a match down EDLT's throat>
EDLT: <Explodes, showering the crowd in shredded tree hugger>
From which we can learn:
1) Don't mess with that thug from the brick-preserver advert. Because it says so on the tin.
2) Don't mess with people who don't want their houses simply to dissolve just because EDLT thinks you shouldn't mess with nature...like.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff