This makes me furious!

[Rizzo]

What harm was he doing? And yes, before anyone says the law - planning or otherwise - applies to everyone, I know it does - but you can bet your bottom dollar that Councillors and MPs etc would get away with something like this.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/W ... story.html

Poor bloke.

[Rykard]

I wonder if he applied for planning permission whether he would get it.

This council\country stinks - it always seems to penalise the little man.. and let's the scrotes and big companies etc get away with murder..

[Kinoulton]

The worst bit is when the jobsworth said "We must stick to planning rules."

No you mustn't. You are paid by tax payers, council tax payers and business rate payers.

You work for us.

Do your bl**dy job properly and apply the rules with a degree of intelligence.

Bl**dy moron.

[DickyP]

Pity councils don't work as hard when travellers set up illegal sites: he should probably have appealed it on Human Rights grounds.

[kingol22]

This is disgraceful. His decking was doing nobody any harm it was not a hazard to anybody. When people get injured in this way then everybody around them should try to help whether thats the local community, the rugby club or the council.

[fleabane]

This is the worst kind of petty overbearing officialdom.

If you share the same local councillor as this disabled gentleman, lobby him unmercifully until he takes up the cause, and the council replace the decking for free.

Time for action!

[BJ.]

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, would some of the complaints on this thread have been so vehement if Richard Engelgardt was not a former rugby player? I remember this story breaking on EMT a few weeks back and then it was mentioned planning permission had not been sought or granted for this structure. I must admit the video footage shot at the time did make the decking look rather intrusive on surrounding properties. Also, the photograph in the article from the Mercury shows Richard Engelgardt to be on something more resembling paving slabs as opposed to decking.

Some people are suggesting the planning permission in this instance should be waived. If so, would this not be setting a dangerous precedence? Where do we draw the line? How disabled do you have to be to qualify for a waiver?

[sam16111986]

Some people are suggesting the planning permission in this instance should be waived. If so, would this not be setting a dangerous precedence? Where do we draw the line? How disabled do you have to be to qualify for a waiver?

You are right, planning permission should have been sort, although, if you read the article the charity he worked with suggested he wouldn't need it. Waiving the need for planning permission in such incidents would be a dangerous precedence but would it not have better for the miserable jobsworth to try and help the man either with a back dated application or modification in order to bring the structure into acceptable limits? Tearing it down seems a waste of RFU and charity money and does nothing to help the gentleman who is now largely house bound. The usual uncaring short sightedness of someone to lazy to step out of their defined job role and try to do something more for the community they are paid to help.

[Rizzo]

BJ - speaking personally - yes, it would make me equally cross if he wasn't a former rugby player. Since it would appear none of his neighbours objected, he had asked his Landlord for permission and they didn't object (and indeed the Landlord thought planning permission would not be required) and the decking did not appear to be overlooking a road, then I think perhaps a bit of leeway should have been allowed.

[BJ.]

Since it would appear none of his neighbours objected ...

There is no mention in the Mercury article whether the neighbours objected or not. Perhaps you have knowledge from elsewhere?

... and the decking did not appear to be overlooking a road ...

How can you tell from the photograph in the Mercury article or, again, do you have alternative information? If I remember the original news item on EMT correctly, it showed the decking from a different angle, i.e. with the camera operator having their back to the house. Since the rear garden sloped away, it meant the decking, to be kept horizontal, got further and further away from the ground. Again, if I remember correctly, Mr Engelgardt could see over his rear fence into the neighbouring garden and that was from a seated position in his wheelchair. If this is the case, what view would his partner and daughter have from a standing position?

The Mercury has used all the right emotive terms in the article to fire up its readers, i.e. 'paralysed', 'former rugby player', 'wept', 'enjoy his garden', 'demolished', 'I was in tears', 'it's really upset me', 'I could play out there with my seven-year-old daughter', 'I can't sit outside now', 'I've got to go out of the front door where there is no garden, or be housebound'.

I'm not defending the authorities who have said the decking must come down: I'm just not letting the press tell me how I should think. If the decking has to be removed, then so be it. If Mr Engelgardt was led to believe by some other authority planning permission was not needed, then his issue should be with this other authority. There are simply too many stories in the news nowadays where people go bleating to the press if something happens they don't like and they try to emotionally blackmail the general populace into supporting them.

[Rizzo]

1. There was no mention of any objections on local radio or in the paper.
2. I was going on what I could see from the photo, obviously you know more about it than I do.

Still makes me cross though.

[Hull Fan]

If there wasn't any objections how did the council know that the decking had been erected?
Someone must of complained, unless i'm being thick, (not unusual). Obviously i'm in Hull so haven't seen any coverage on EMT.