Brighton Place - Dentist's "garden"

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 05 Jul 2010, 11:47

Can you spot what's changed?

rmolehusband · Post by **rmolehusband** » 05 Jul 2010, 11:56

I noticed a road sign at the junction with Rosefield Place had been uprooted, do I get half a point for that?

If not, has the minimum speed limit been raised to 50?

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 05 Jul 2010, 12:04

Try again

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Jul 2010, 12:20

Double yellow lines at the junction*

edit * with the high street

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Jul 2010, 12:22

rmolehusband wrote:I noticed a road sign at the junction with Rosefield Place had been uprooted...

That reminds me. I need to phone the council. I have an uprooted street sign from West Brighton Crescent currently languishing in my garden. It wisnae me incidentally.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 05 Jul 2010, 12:23

Try again.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Jul 2010, 12:27

Well, the grass has been growing between the setts for quite a while, the lakes form whenever it rains, and the potholes become craters a while back, so other than the yellow lines which only appeared last week I'm a bit stumped. Mind you, I haven't left the house today as yet, so maybe I'm missing something really obvious

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Jul 2010, 12:29

Well go and have a look and report back.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Jul 2010, 12:30

Bob Jefferson wrote:Well go and have a look and report back.

I'd have to get dressed...

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 05 Jul 2010, 12:33

Maria - I can't believe you admitted to that on here! Get your clobber on and go and have a look; either that or wait to see it in the EEN tonight!!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Jul 2010, 12:43

Well, must say I am pleased, though it is a shame that it had to come to this.

rmolehusband · Post by **rmolehusband** » 05 Jul 2010, 12:59

Have the barricades gone up as West Brighton Crescent breaks away from Porty to form it's own principality, where ne're so much as a Lego house will be built unless a planning consent is submitted written in unicorns' tears.

Please put us out of our misery...

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 05 Jul 2010, 13:01

Dont you dare Mrs D - let the lazy git go and look for himself

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Jul 2010, 13:05

It is worth a look!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Jul 2010, 13:10

rmolehusband · Post by **rmolehusband** » 05 Jul 2010, 13:20

Puerto bella wrote:let the lazy git go and look for himself

Ouch!

That's the Dentists, isn't it? I remember seeing some planning notice from the council about the garden on their fence. What's the back-story? Are members of PCC chaining themselves to the railings as we speak?

I'm a little disappointed now I know what it is, I was getting my hopes up for traffic calming, yellow lines and the fixing of some of the more obvious crevasses in the cobbles. I cycle down there most days and it's scary.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Jul 2010, 13:37

The story goes back to 2007. The dentists dug up the lawn, shrubs and parking spaces and paved the entire area with a (no doubt, expensive) variety of mono block, brick and paving stone in raised terraces. They also installed new railings, a 'standing stone' and a large lit sign. They didn't apply for any permissions from the council and failed to notify neighbours. As the house is a B listed property and in a Grade A conservation area this was a bit of a mistake.

In Jan 2008, they applied for retrospective permission, which was granted for the railings, but the rest of the work was refused permission. They were served with an enforcement notice, but it seemed to have been ignored by them and the result is what happened today.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 05 Jul 2010, 13:37

rmolehusband wrote:....I cycle down there most days and it's scary.

Cycling from Porty is a much rougher ride and scarier.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Jul 2010, 14:15

Marya wrote:
In Jan 2008, they applied for retrospective permission, which was granted for the railings, but the rest of the work was refused permission. They were served with an enforcement notice, but it seemed to have been ignored by them and the result is what happened today.

Surprising really, You'd think they would appreciate; if one fails attend to things it may end up in forceful removal.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 05 Jul 2010, 15:00

Our jaws dropped as we saw the first paviours being extracted by the giant teeth of the crane. What a mess. The lady from the dentist's who was filling in the man from ENN could have done with an anaesthetic to calm her nerves, I think. The full force of the planning system came to bear on Brighton Place this morning.

Pity the application for strong armed enforcement action seems only to be in the case of listed buildings in private ownership and does not seem to apply to the many unlawful 'presences' in our community - some condoned by the cooncil.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Jul 2010, 15:15

Puerto bella wrote:Our jaws dropped as we saw the first paviours being extracted by the giant teeth of the crane. What a mess. The lady from the dentist's who was filling in the man from ENN could have done with an anaesthetic to calm her nerves, I think.

Pah!! Is that all the dental puns you can fit in to 2 sentences? Do you think anaesthetic would have plaqueated her?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Jul 2010, 16:56

Porty wrote:Do you think anaesthetic would have plaqueated her?

Should we brace ourselves for more or is that your crowning glory Porty?

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 05 Jul 2010, 17:33

Don't want to 'denture' anyone's ego, but just in case you don't give a 'floss' I thought it was good 'clean' fun trying to see who was observant and who required an injection to notice what was going on. I think I deserve the 'sticker'.

Another major planning distaster for someone in 6 months.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Jul 2010, 10:32

Marya wrote:
Porty wrote:Do you think anaesthetic would have plaqueated her?
Should we brace ourselves for more or is that your crowning glory Porty?

Marya wins the plate.

Post by **wangi** » 06 Jul 2010, 12:21

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... 6402303.jp

Dentist to sue council for ripping up garden
By RORY REYNOLDS
THE owner of a dental surgery has vowed to sue the city council after workmen with a JCB digger were sent to rip up his £38,000 "illegal" garden.
...
Mr Ditchburn said he was "totally shocked" at the "Nazi-style" move by the city council. He said the only warning he received that the local authority was going to take action against his surgery was a letter which arrived at 11am - two hours after work had begun
...
Mr Ditchburn said: "Never in my 55 years as a professional have I experienced something like this. The whole thing was done in a Nazi style.

"It costs us £14,000 to provide each dentist with sterile equipment, but we're paying for an 'illegal garden' that the council don't like to be landscaped. We will see the council in court for this."

Puerto bella, Marya - did you miss the stormtroopers and gas, or what? That guy needs to get a bit of perspective - it's a garden, not millions of lives.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 06 Jul 2010, 12:30

Did see a sniper on the roof of St John's but didn't want to cause alarm!

You'd think it was the storming of the Iranian Embassy reading that piece. Typical EEN keek.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Jul 2010, 12:38

Wha age is Mr Ditchburn? "in my 55 Years as a professional i've never experienced anything like this" .

I doubt he'd be saying the same if he was a a landscape gardener.

Having read the complete article I note that Mr D is 62. If someone can start practising Dentistry at age 7 without attracting enough complaints to get struck off, they should be allowed some leeway with their gardens.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 07 Jul 2010, 22:32

The dentist's front yard was a pretty odd and awkward design but did it really warrant this?
I find it hard to reconcile the previous design with the new one and convince myself that .....yes the character of that listed building and the CA was threatened to such an extent by what had been done but thankfully now as a result of the strong arm of the cooncil -its all ok? Its an odd one and not really what enforcement is about. Makes me slightly uncomfortable.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Jul 2010, 10:54

I agree.

If one recalls correctly the former use was for parking 2 cars. In fact it definitely was. We used to rent the upstairs rooms from the dentist.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 Jul 2010, 11:40

The dentist had 2 years to restore the garden and he didn't. He cocked a snoot at planning and ignored his neighbours. How much more leeway should CoEC have given? OK, it looks heavy handed sending in large machinery, but let's face it, sending in a man with a pickaxe wouldn't really suffice given the extent of the area.

The previous garden had two parking spaces, shrubs and two grass areas either side of the central drive. It wasn't a 'tired looking' area. It was fine, fitted in well with the rest of the street and offered off street parking. When I first saw the hard landscaping going down I presumed he was providing more parking, but instead he was removing the existing two parking spaces.

Yes, the whole thing is a bit bizarre, but I don't think you can lay blame at the council's door.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 08 Jul 2010, 16:03

I agree with you Marya and they were given every chance to rectify it.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 08 Jul 2010, 21:19

You're missing the point guys - European legislation requires enforcement action to be proportionate to the problem.
This is THE most extreme enforcement action open to the Council - I was asking for views on whether to the general public the problem was as bad as to warrant it at the end of the day.
I could understand if they'd demolished a Listed Building but come on - its a front garden. What message does this send out about the planning system. Jack boot, comes to mind - even if it did take a couple of years. There was bound to be an answer other than this.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 08 Jul 2010, 22:11

In terms of rectifying it POP - to what point in time? Original? Therein lies the eternal dilema for anyone involved in conservation. Its an unhealthy society that looks to preserve things in aspic for all eternity.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Jul 2010, 22:52

Heh, heh, heh...

I've got an absolute doozy of a planning application in mind.

Still deciding whether to go ahead, but if I do, I expect to induce a few heart attacks at Historic Scotland.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 09 Jul 2010, 09:04

I think the response is proportionate - they stuck two fingers up to planning even though they knew they were in breach of existing guidelines. Many people in the same situation would have abided by the guidelines but far too many people think they are the only ones on the planet and do what they want. It is an example of the selfish 'it's only me' syndome that is everywhere around us. Parking in disabled spaces because 'I will only be 5 mins and it is only me' is another good example of this attidude.