Paris bins banlieue bit barn because cloud is too loud Interxion will have to launch an appeal in France if it's to save a €130m-plus data centre in Paris. An administrative court in the Paris suburb of Montreuil has withdrawn the 9,000 square metre data centre's planning permission following action brought by residents. The residents had three complaints: the bit-barn's …
Shouldn't this somewhat read around the lines 'Bit Barn FAILS to meet specs laid down in building permit, puts 130M+ investment at risk over saving maybe 0.25% in cost for construction' ?
Disclaimer: my background is in civil engineering. Seen stuff like this in projects I've been involved in more than once. The building permit doesn't let you build 'a building' - it let's you build 'exactly THE building as specced in the permit'.
The "Hey, let's submit plans that are up to codes and regulations, get the permit, then build something different" approach. Not recommended.
The "Hey, let's submit plans that are up to codes and regulations, get the permit, then build something different" approach. Not recommended.
Certainly not in France where every district and village has a mayor & council with draconian planning powers.
Near me someone got permission to do a barn conversion. The rules for that are strict, the conversion must respect the original floor area and reuse existing walls. Demolishing all but one wall and building a large family home on the site doesn't cut it, but that's what was done. When called on it, instead of apologising and looking for a compromise, which might just have worked, the owner got his lawyers involved. The mayor has bigger lawyers, and the mostly-complete house now has a demolition order against it, which is still being fought through appeal courts.
Or the german Bauaufsicht:
http://www.erkapfahl.de/de/die-firma/presseberichte/113-ein-haus-auf-wanderschaft-verschiebung-eines-wohnhauses-in-bad-oeynhausen
TL;DR: Man gets building permit for house. Man builds house, but for own convenience not exactly in the allocated spot. House now sited in nature reserve. Probably 'oh, once it's there I'll play dumb and they let let me keep it that way'-gambit. Plan fails. Man gets to choose: tear down brand new house abd rebuild in approved location or - move the entire building. Which he does (see pics in link).
Another example from this side of the Channel.
Castle Hill, near Huddersfield is a scheduled ancient monument. It's a hill fort (late Bronze Age IICR the excavation report) converted by the Normans into a motte & bailey castle. In the late C19th a pub was built in the bailey & a tower to celebrate Queen Victoria's jubilee was perched on top of the motte - not things you'd get away with now. From what I can remember of my only visit to the pub many years ago it was in quite an attractive Arts & Crafts style, as is the tower.
A few years ago the owners of the pub applied for planning permission for an extension and incredibly - remember that this was inside a scheduled monument - got it. The permission covered a limited amount of demolition. They demolished rather more and TPTB stepped in, stopped work and told them to reinstate using the original materials. They'd (cough) failed to retain the original materials on site (dressed stone in that style is quite valuable) so they couldn't do that. The consequence was that they had to demolish the rest of the building & make good.
Incredibly once in a while there are renewed attempts to get a new pub built on the site quite ignoring the fact that it's still an ancient monument.
Also the pub in Maida Vale in London, where a developer who had failed to get planning permission to build a block of flats on the site just demolished the pub, presumably on the assumption that planning permission would be easier to get afterwards. The council are making him rebuild it from the ground up.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
