'Planning free-for-all'? If only.

[ellal]

Would you like to subscribe to my twitter account?

Why would I follow a twit?

Anyway, I thought you had a 'golden' troll account...

Btw, what a difference a couple of weeks makes...

26/3/13

Hello fellow troll, you seem to follow me quite avidly.

7/3/13

I don't think you are a troll

Memory gone a bit awol has it?...

 

[onecog]

NO.....They already had the corner of the field for a village hall (bottom right) before i bought the property.

 

[AronSearle]

Would you use some of the cash from the sale of the land to compensate your neighbours for the loss of amenity?

And what exactly would they be losing that he has to pay compensation for?

This kind of thinking is the disease that causes houses to be out of reach for a whole new generation of young uns.

Would you like to subscribe to my twitter account?

Why would I follow a twit?

Anyway, I thought you had a 'golden' troll account...

Btw, what a difference a couple of weeks makes...

26/3/13

Hello fellow troll, you seem to follow me quite avidly.

7/3/13

I don't think you are a troll

Memory gone a bit awol has it?...

I'm not sure if your obsession with me is flattering or disturbing...

 

[tony1851]

Would you use some of the cash from the sale of the land to compensate your neighbours for the loss of amenity?

Does anyone have a right to a view?

 

[chapeau]

To be honest, I'm not sure, it's a good question.

We have a right to "peaceful enjoyment of property" which could well include a view. It should.

 

[onecog]

To be honest, I'm not sure, it's a good question.

We have a right to "peaceful enjoyment of property" which could well mean include a view. It should.

A view is only borrowed.

 

[tony1851]

To be honest, I'm not sure, it's a good question.

We have a right to "peaceful enjoyment of property" which could well include a view. It should.

On that basis, no more houses would be built anywhere.

 

[ladylola]

Why don't we bulldoze buckingham palace and replace it with a housing estate, win win situation. Plenty of inner city housing , saves the green belt and it will only effect one family who are only there a few months of the year anyway.

 

[chapeau]

To be honest, I'm not sure, it's a good question.

We have a right to "peaceful enjoyment of property" which could well include a view. It should.

On that basis, no more houses would be built anywhere.

I disagree

 

[AronSearle]

We have a right to "peaceful enjoyment of property" which could well include a view. It should.

How does seeing a house at the back of your garden stop the "peaceful enjoyment of your property", are you saying those people who live with houses next to them are unable to "peacefully" enjoy their property, twaddle. Is it the constructional noise, again twaddle as you just stopped all construction anywhere.

So you want to protect "their" view, how on earth would you define it, Is it when "their" view is blocked?

Well a view is just what you can see out your window, stick a house at the back of their garden and you have only changed their view, not blocked it, they have lost nothing that they physically owned.


So then your not protecting "their" view, but more fighting changes to their view, but if A house can see 2-3 miles over hills from it's window, should anything built in it's sight have to be at their permission, or they should be paid compensation.

A whole load of twaddle by selfish people who bought a house, and don't want others to enjoy the same privileged for their own selfish reasons.


You want to look out of your window and see fields, and NEVER have them built upon, well buy the fields yourself, don't dictate what others can do with their property because it suits yourself.