Confused - Tate Modern / Neo bankside ruling
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64481...
News article summary: Owners of those glass flats have won in court that the Tate are encroaching on their privacy.
It at least appears to me, as an uneducated person, that someone built some daft flats with glass walls next to an existing building, and now can complain about lack of privacy.
Is that madness? It sounds like those people that move in to newbuilds next to airports / race tracks / local music venue / whatever then complain about the noise, which was there for >20 years before planning was even granted for their house!
Have I got the total wrong end of the stick? I mean I "get" that this area of the Tate building might have not been used the same way before 2016, but surely if you value privacy you don't buy a house with walls made out of 100% glass?
News article summary: Owners of those glass flats have won in court that the Tate are encroaching on their privacy.
It at least appears to me, as an uneducated person, that someone built some daft flats with glass walls next to an existing building, and now can complain about lack of privacy.
Is that madness? It sounds like those people that move in to newbuilds next to airports / race tracks / local music venue / whatever then complain about the noise, which was there for >20 years before planning was even granted for their house!
Have I got the total wrong end of the stick? I mean I "get" that this area of the Tate building might have not been used the same way before 2016, but surely if you value privacy you don't buy a house with walls made out of 100% glass?
Some Gump said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64481...
News article summary: Owners of those glass flats have won in court that the Tate are encroaching on their privacy.
It at least appears to me, as an uneducated person, that someone built some daft flats with glass walls next to an existing building, and now can complain about lack of privacy.
Is that madness? It sounds like those people that move in to newbuilds next to airports / race tracks / local music venue / whatever then complain about the noise, which was there for >20 years before planning was even granted for their house!
Have I got the total wrong end of the stick? I mean I "get" that this area of the Tate building might have not been used the same way before 2016, but surely if you value privacy you don't buy a house with walls made out of 100% glass?
They could give Hillary’s blinds a call….News article summary: Owners of those glass flats have won in court that the Tate are encroaching on their privacy.
It at least appears to me, as an uneducated person, that someone built some daft flats with glass walls next to an existing building, and now can complain about lack of privacy.
Is that madness? It sounds like those people that move in to newbuilds next to airports / race tracks / local music venue / whatever then complain about the noise, which was there for >20 years before planning was even granted for their house!
Have I got the total wrong end of the stick? I mean I "get" that this area of the Tate building might have not been used the same way before 2016, but surely if you value privacy you don't buy a house with walls made out of 100% glass?
ecs said:
Neo Bankside was built in 2012, the viewing platform was built in 2016.
There's also the question (which the court case turned on) as to why an art gallery needed an external viewing capability. Why the Tate didn't solve this at planning and design with shielding, or even an alternative location for it is beyond me. The whole thing smacks of arrogance. Collectingbrass said:
ecs said:
Neo Bankside was built in 2012, the viewing platform was built in 2016.
There's also the question (which the court case turned on) as to why an art gallery needed an external viewing capability. Why the Tate didn't solve this at planning and design with shielding, or even an alternative location for it is beyond me. The whole thing smacks of arrogance. Tate are appealing the decision.
(Was unaware of the timings of the planning applications)
The article (and judge) summed it up well
It doesn't matter what each party thought the other was thinking when making planning applications
A viewing gallery that has a view directly into these homes is not normal usage of a property, so is a planning matter.
I wonder what the high court will do with it second time round?
It was quite close too: 3 vs 2.
The original suggestion in the (now overturned) high court was to simply get net curtains . Yet I doubt someone who put down £2.5m on a flat with floor to ceiling views of the Thames really had net curtains in mind...
It doesn't matter what each party thought the other was thinking when making planning applications
A viewing gallery that has a view directly into these homes is not normal usage of a property, so is a planning matter.
I wonder what the high court will do with it second time round?
It was quite close too: 3 vs 2.
The original suggestion in the (now overturned) high court was to simply get net curtains . Yet I doubt someone who put down £2.5m on a flat with floor to ceiling views of the Thames really had net curtains in mind...
Newc said:
And citing 700 year old case law.
I have the impression that barristers live for the day they can pop up in court with "and now my lord if I may refer you to the important precedent of 1341 in the Crown vs Mrs Miggins".
That's the best part of this storyI have the impression that barristers live for the day they can pop up in court with "and now my lord if I may refer you to the important precedent of 1341 in the Crown vs Mrs Miggins".
According to the BBC, ...the law partly dates back to the 14th Century. The Supreme Court notes that back in 1341, John Le Leche, a London fishmonger, unlawfully erected a "watch-tower" from which he could peep on his neighbours.
gareth_r said:
That's the best part of this story
According to the BBC, ...the law partly dates back to the 14th Century. The Supreme Court notes that back in 1341, John Le Leche, a London fishmonger, unlawfully erected a "watch-tower" from which he could peep on his neighbours.
Yep, his name checks out…According to the BBC, ...the law partly dates back to the 14th Century. The Supreme Court notes that back in 1341, John Le Leche, a London fishmonger, unlawfully erected a "watch-tower" from which he could peep on his neighbours.
I used to walk past these all the time and it always struck me as odd, even the first floor flats are full height glass - you can see right in from street level
google street view
google street view
gareth_r said:
Newc said:
And citing 700 year old case law.
I have the impression that barristers live for the day they can pop up in court with "and now my lord if I may refer you to the important precedent of 1341 in the Crown vs Mrs Miggins".
That's the best part of this storyI have the impression that barristers live for the day they can pop up in court with "and now my lord if I may refer you to the important precedent of 1341 in the Crown vs Mrs Miggins".
According to the BBC, ...the law partly dates back to the 14th Century. The Supreme Court notes that back in 1341, John Le Leche, a London fishmonger, unlawfully erected a "watch-tower" from which he could peep on his neighbours.
gareth_r said:
Newc said:
And citing 700 year old case law.
I have the impression that barristers live for the day they can pop up in court with "and now my lord if I may refer you to the important precedent of 1341 in the Crown vs Mrs Miggins".
That's the best part of this storyI have the impression that barristers live for the day they can pop up in court with "and now my lord if I may refer you to the important precedent of 1341 in the Crown vs Mrs Miggins".
According to the BBC, ...the law partly dates back to the 14th Century. The Supreme Court notes that back in 1341, John Le Leche, a London fishmonger, unlawfully erected a "watch-tower" from which he could peep on his neighbours.
I lived for the day when I could correct a poorly-prepared, despite being rather expensive, defence brief. Such occurrences are what police dreams are made of.
Derek Smith said:
I lived for the day when I could correct a poorly-prepared, despite being rather expensive, defence brief. Such occurrences are what police dreams are made of.
In the same way the smug brief gets far too excited when the junior police officer states he could smell alcohol on the defendant's breath.....The historic acts always were amusing, the Town and Police Clauses Act still being wheeled out regularly today.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff