Readers will recall that it took the council 7 months to get round to discussing the ombudsman's report, albeit behind closed doors at a meeting of the planning committee. The full council never got an opportunity to discuss the way in which the matter had been handled because the relevant report was tacked on at the end of the annual budget meeting, and it was voted through along with a truckload of other reports without discussion.
Having observed the way in which the council downplayed the matter, dragged its feet and made it obvious that it was not at all happy with the Ombudsman's findings, Mrs Breckman's neighbour appears to have concluded that he had no need to worry about any comeback from that quarter.
Then on 1st March this year a huge trailer belonging to an articulated lorry was brought in to replace the board and removals van. This is now the view from Mrs Breckman's window:
A second view taken from a public road may help to put things into perspective. Of all the places that the trailer could have been parked, apparently there was only room for it outside Mrs Breckman's cottage:
Unsurprisingly, Mrs Breckman has been back in touch with the council, who have replied that they can do nothing about it because the trailer is not a fixed structure and is being used for agricultural purposes (it contains a couple of bales of hay).
Previously the field and the removals van was home to two pigs. Judging from the height of the articulated trailer, any pigs now in the field will have to be able to fly.
29 comments:
Mae hyn yn fater i'r heddlu
Ashamed to be Welsh.
Is this not a human rights issue? ECHR Article 8 – "Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
Or does the ECHR not apply in Carmarthenshire?
Gosh and here was me thinking that advertisements on vehicles or trailers parked in fields, verges, or in lay-bys required express consent!
This goes to show that the Ombudsman's criticism is pointless. Total waste of public money!
So... Is that the offending neighbour's company 'Owens Road Service'??? is that the right email address then? sales@owens-logistics.com ????
Just want to find out for sure before I email my disapproval.
Which seems the least I can do, the least WE can do. There's no point in signing any of those meaningless 'anti-bullying' petitions that I'm sure we've ALL signed at some point in our lives, if, when we see most blatant bullying we don't at least let the bully know...... 'we can see you'.
And if it is 'Owens Road Service' it's not exactly good advertizing is it!!!
Betty Booty - No, the neighbour's company is NOT Owens Transport, and by all accounts Owens Transport will not be very happy to see this.
Ok, thanks. I've still emailed Owens Road Service but I'll add a note to my FB share so people know that isn't the company responsible because it LOOKS like it is.
I'd be fuuuuurious if somebody used my company's products with my company logo's to bully and intimidate, particularly in such an extreme manner and particularly as it is a case that has already attracted media attention.
I should have put my subject as 'Unauthorised? negative company placement'.
My heartfelt sympathy's to the Breckmans.
surely this is harassment - a criminal offence ! telephone the Police, see what they say.
I've spoken to the perfectly reasonable folks over at Owens Logistics - and I think we should stress here that they are NOT Mrs. Breckman's nemesis...
They say they have recently sold some of their trailers with the side curtains intact, but they are having a look into it now...
HOW MUCH MORE DO THESE TWO PENSIONERS HAVE TO TAKE BEFORE SOMEONE TAKES ACTION? HOW DID THE PREVIOUS LORRY AND "PRIVACY" BOARD GET REMOVED SO EASILY(ALLBEIT AT THE LAST MOMENT ?)I WOULD DOUBT IT WAS A CASE OF GOOD WILL ON THE NEIGHBOUR'S PART SO HOW DID IT HAPPEN AND WHO PERSUADED HIM? WHY HAS THIS LORRY BEEN PLACED EVEN CLOSER THAN THE LAST ONE AND WILL THE NEIGHBOUR HAVE TO AGAIN BE PURSUADED? VERY STRANGE!!!!
Plant some trees and try and hide the mess. Don't rise and don't inflame.
Try to move on, life is too short.
It is an absolute disgrace that carmarthen council again evades responsibility for enforcing against the lorry parked as closely as possible to this couples property. It is quite clearly for the purpose of intimidation and harassment given the area that is available.No one with any intelligence could accept the excuse that it is for agriculture.The enormous sheds are for that purpose.This could happen to anyone and I urge people of Carmarthen to contribute to this blog by leaving comments urging their councillors to question officers decisions on this matter.
Does this mean we can all park our vehicles outside his property in a silent protest, leave them there with Mrs.Breckman' permission as they are not fixed structures and we are just parked up enjoying the view!!! Carmarthenshire does not acknowledge human rights yet EU law overrides our own..... Again I think we are back to policies of the county being archaic!!!!!
It does appear that all those who stand up to CCC or question their decision making,are made to suffer in one way or another, either directly or indirectly.
Plant some trees?!!! Move on?!!! Does annonymous of this ststement have any idea how close this vehicle is to the cottage wall.Pay a visit as I have, then you would be able to see how ridiculous is your suggestion.
It’s not what you know; it’s who you know that counts in the halls of Carmarthenshire council.
I am sure the Bowen and Noakes household would not appreciate the same view from their window.
Plant some trees??? ... If more people in carmarthenshire stood up to their rotton council in the way that Eddie and Trish have done this kind of thing wouldn't happen.The CCC dictatorship thrives on the appalling apathy, indifference and tunnel vision of many Carmarthenshire residents.
nothing to do with CCC - two sets of neighbours quarrelling not even the Pope will get a peaceful solution here !!
The situation that Eddie and Trish find themselves in is everything to with CCC who have failed repeatedly to enforce planning and various other regulations.CCC is very keen to cover things up which is where they have rather a lot in common with the Pope
Annonymous 10.02 shows they are in complete ignorance/denial of the whole situation.It is All about CCC who failed dismally to enforce against someone who was blatantly abusing planning policies and engaging in unauthorised activities. If anyone comments on issues like this they have to be sure of their facts.The only people who would wish to absolve the council of any responsibility would be the council itself or someone closely related.Again I say look at the evidence at first hand before making judgment you would be surprised!!!
It is really too bad that the lorry with the transport company's logo has been used in a clear case of harassment.Of course planning officers can act as they did with the previous lorry and privacy board.I understand that the neighbour was" persuaded."How strange that having done so this lorry replaces the previous one and is even bigger.What is going on in the Wild West of Carmarthen? Council officers were accused by the planning inspector of "Turning a blind eye "to activities.This must not happen again.Come on Carmarthen residents register your disgust at the way council officers fail to uphold the right of individuals to enjoyment of their home.This has been commented on previously as a human rights isssue and I totally agree.
so where is the carmarthenshire enforcement team in this?
if that is true, then owen's should not have sold the sidescreens to another 'trader' as it would give the impression the trader is 'owens' and lead to all sorts of false trading descriptions and up to no good.
another interesting point is what is a permanent structure and a temporary one? it could be said that carms enforcement have ordered caravans to be removed, when if fact a caravan has wheels on it meaning it can be moved at any point of time, so therefore not static, but deemed as static if it is being used as accomodation over a considerable amount of time.
so the trailer has wheels just the same as a caravan.
now any reasonable person would think that sized trailer is not adequate for a couple of bales, since the shed on the main property was meant to store bales?
even if it was full of bales, a reasonable person would think it not located ideally.
now, if i am thinking correctly, the 'temporary' trailer is now static and permanent, therefore requiring a new set of planning permission because it is a new structure, even if it used for agriculatural use.
Plus the right to light issues, and the obvious intimidation and harrassment issue.
any reasonable person may well have parked a vehicle in another part of that field, but not this guy...
If someone moved a static carriage an inch or two to avoid a penalty or charge, that won't work as that is not complying with an order.
Replacing something with a larger object equates to the same size as the old one plus excess. Even though the fixture has changed, it is still basically the same size as the old plus the extra mass, and therefore is the 'original' intrusion. as it doesn't seem relevant that the old object comes into the equation, it's what's been replaced is the issue, and the new object acts for the old one
ccc avoiding the payable £1000? nothing has changed. even though the object has changed, the intrusion is present, the fact is things are worse and abetting the circumstance by not enforcing against the problem.
Come on C C C do the right thing and help these people , this is not the WALES i know, i feel so sorry for them
Good comments a2.The problem is that the council have leaned over backwards to avoid any kind of enforcement on activities at this location.When one begins to take this path it is difficult to get off.Something is very wrong here.
Research suggests that "Section 224 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 states that the display of an advertisement without consent {which general advertising on trailers will not have} is punishable on conviction in a magistrates’ court by a maximum fine of £2,500 plus £250 a day on conviction for a continuing offence. The advertisement, landowner, occupier and whoever benefits from the advert are all potentially liable to prosecution."
Free advertising for Owens and their buddies on jail hill.
Worth a free lunch for someone at the Lodge surely.
Post a Comment