Then they have to prove its an unsuitable platform. Just as they would have to show that a tree is dangerous or blocking out the sun for neighbours if they were to try and require you to cut it down.
It might harm someone if it falls down. There is a reason building codes exist.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That’s not how this stuff works at all.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Hold up…
Are you saying that instead of letting anyone build anything, and then the government has to find everything and investigate to make sure it’s safe…
That instead we should set regulations for safe building and require people to get permits notifying the city of the build so it could be approved before it was built?!?!
You might be on to something here…
/s
Really disappointing so many people didn’t understand that incredibly basic system and downvoted you.
mannycalavera@feddit.uk 1 week ago
Ummmm excuse me. Lemmy will tell you how “this stuff” works. Even if it doesn’t. Lemmy will tell you.
yakko@feddit.uk 1 week ago
There’s still a less combative way, I have to think. Require them to get a qualified builder to come round and make sure it’s sturdy and up to code. Hard not to see the present demand as just attacking nonconformity.
HarneyToker@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Imagine getting downvoted for being right.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Happens a lot here.
Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
They haven’t brought up any saftey concerns, simply ‘you didn’t ask first, so now it must come down’
Their initial letter about it only mentions aesthetic issues. Someone doesn’t like how it looks and is flexing their position to get it removed.
BigTwerp@feddit.uk 1 week ago
… because that is how planning permission works.