Okay, so they are tasteless, icky and relate to an ideology I abhor, but, it is his house after all.
A man has been told to remove an Islamic sign from the front of his house by Newport council which claims it is an “obtrusive advert”.
The Arabic symbols translate as “with the will/grace of God, may God grant him peace, there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger”.
Homeowner Mahmood Ali, who wants to illuminate the sign, says the symbols are a blessing on his house in Chepstow Road.
Well, personally, I think they are an eyesore. However, it being his house, the council should have no say in the matter.
—————————————-
Update: Reading the comments, I see that this thread has descended into reductio ad absurdum. Rock concerts and tower blocks in the garden? You what? As this would be in breach of the “do no harm” principle, they simply don’t apply. What we are talking about here is a sign on the house and silly rules imposed with the force of law to stop householders painting their door a different colour or putting in non-standard windows. If the local demos don’t like it, the local demos can stump up the money and buy the householder out, not use the violence of the local bye-laws to force compliance. That’s what I was objecting to. A sense of proportion, please.
Why can’t he just call it Dunsinin and be content?
What’s the difference between a few words used as a house name, a few words used to indicate who and when a house was built, and a few words of no special consequence.
Sorry, but I’m with the Council on this one. His house is in a conservation area and the sign simply breaches the ‘conservation code’ (possibly because being “… bright green, plastic and 2m (6ft 7ins) long” it’s not quite the ticket, don’t y’know :smile:)
I used to live in a conservation area where you weren’t allowed to change anything – even the windows. It was a pain (sorry) but the town High Street has retained its quaint character in a UK in which one town centre looks pretty much like any other.
And that is morally reprehensible. The council should have no place deciding what windows you fit or the colour of your door. If they want to, they should buy the property. You can take it from this that I do not agree with the conservation area principle as it flies in the face of property rights.
“in a UK in which one town centre looks pretty much like any other”
So what? If you don’t own the buildings in question you have no right to say they must look pretty or old or whatever else.
I would like to put up a sign saying ‘Mohammad, the ‘prophet’, had sex with a 9 year-old girl.’
I’d like to change the sign every month or so, each time denouncing Allah and his messenger.
Do reckon there is any chance at all that I would be allowed to do so?
No, but you should be able to.
Except local rules and bylaws such as these are ultimately decided upon by the local population.
Most Conservation Areas have been around for some time. I’ve lived in one myself. It’s extremely unlikely that the person in question would have been unaware of the rules that applied to his property. If he doesn’t like them, he’s more than welcome to sell up and move to a community that shares similar opinions to his own.
A town or village is a *community* first and foremost, or it simply doesn’t work. Humans struggle to get along with each other at the best of times, which is why soap operas are so popular. It is also why we’ve invented so many petty social rules, like small talk, good manners, those annoying little quirks of etiquette that require you to go to work with clothes on, and so forth.
By your logic, the person in question would be perfectly within his “rights” to install a 20-foot, floodlit, flashing neon sign proclaiming his sky-fairy preferences. Mercifully, he is not. Nor is he allowed to blast out a call to prayer every few hours at 130 dB.
Personally, I think most Victorian housing is grotty, cheap, repetitive rubbish knocked up in a hurry for landlords to milk for as long as they can. Having seen the construction quality of some of these homes first-hand, the widely held, (and clearly mistaken,) notion that the Victorians deliberately built all those thousands of streets of terraced houses to last is utterly risible at best. It’s a miracle more of them haven’t collapsed.
The present public consensus is that a lot of old stuff is worth keeping, rather like a living museum, so we have Conservation Areas like these as a result of the (perfectly understandable) desire by many communities to avoid having something like Catford’s “Eros House” built in their midst.
However much I may dislike the “living museum” approach to conservation that people seem to prefer, I’m clearly outnumbered and, in a democracy, the opinions of the few don’t get to overrule the opinions of the many.
“Except local rules and bylaws such as these are ultimately decided upon by the local population”
Really? You believe local elections are fought on by-laws?
I’m not claiming the UK’s democratic machinery is perfect, but there are plenty of examples of single-policy candidates who are locals intent on changing one or more of their local community’s rules. If you don’t like a (by)law, the onus is on you to get it changed, not to just rant on the internet about it and hope for the best.
Ultimately, my point was that communities have rights in themselves. The whole bloody *point* of democracy was to give communities control over their rights and regulations. If it was just “every man for himself” you were after, you wouldn’t need the whole democracy thing in the first place!
XX It’s extremely unlikely that the person in question would have been unaware of the rules that applied to his property. XX
Probably TOTALY aware. But a major fault with camel shaggers (Under age camels, at that!), is they think the law does not apply to them.
HELPED of course, by arseholes in the Reichtag, Riksdag, Westminster or any other seat of dictatorship you care to mention (Except Russia!), that bend over forewards to accomodate the bastards every wish.
There is also the “and/or” option, which sais that is EXACTLY why he wants to do it.
Agree, conservation area. If you buy a property in a conservation area – and this one was designated in August 1995 – you accept that not just yourself but other people are not able to change the look since it is the combined visual effect which adds value. There’s nothing unusual in English property law about conditions, restrictive covenants, rights of way, restrictions on purpose, materials and colours, tree protection orders etc. If you don’t like the ones which apply to a property, buy somewhere else.
The villas are of the Belgravia kind which, slotted together, have the gracious look of a minor stately home. I’m guessing the neighbours have been annoyed by the degradation of that section of the frontage.
This is what the review says:
“The conservation area comprises several distinct elements located mainly in Kensington Place, St. John’s Road and Chepstow Road with many of the buildings dating from circa 1850 – 1880. Perhaps the most notable single architectural element is the long 2 – 3 storey Italianate terrace to the west side of Kensington place. Although eroded by unsympathetic alterations many of the original architectural features of this distinctive terrace survive; particularly the stuccowork, doors and fenestration.”
Going by Streetview, he has put the sign on the villa at the end where it can most annoy the other pair of houses which share the drive and front garden. He’s done some smaller writing on the minor facade, but that’s round the corner and doesn’t bother them quite so much because it isn’t a beautiful elevation and they can’t see it every time they drive in.
Added to which, the green sign isn’t a blessing; it’s an attempt to dominate other people’s houses with a declaration of religion. The power of a blessing is not related to its size. Allah knows just as much by a small ceramic plaque as by a giant sign; he doesn’t need spectacles.
The man’s a fool to want to destroy the value in his own property; let him buy somewhere which affects no-one else and deface that instead. Wouldn’t it be nice to get on wiv me neighbours…
N.B. When I’m in charge of the world, all those giant neon signs on the top of Tesco are coming down second thing. They can have their name over the door but not on the roof and not extending above the ridge line. First thing, in case you were wondering, is the pigeons.
I repeat what I said above – the principle is inherently wrong. If I buy a property, I do not expect a third party to start dictating what windows I may fit or what colour door I may have. I would never, ever, enter into an agreement that allowed such a thing. It’s why I would never buy a flat that involves one of those dreadful management committees or a leasehold that had any form of restrictions, because the principle is wrong.
Yes, I take the point that this man is seeking to push his faith – but property rights trump our aesthetic sensibilities – or, it should do.
I like pigeons. I’ll be there feeding them. 😈
“If I buy a property, I do not expect a third party to start dictating what windows I may fit or what colour door I may have.”
You do realise that nobody ever truly “owns” property in most countries, right? You’re *granted* a freehold or leasehold, but the ultimate “owner” in the UK is that nebulous entity known as “The Crown”. This is the basis of “Eminent Domain” and concepts like Compulsory Purchase Orders. Fundamentally, if the good of the many trumps the good of you, you lose.
If you genuinely want a property that is unlikely to have any problems, buy *land*. Freehold. A bloody long way from any other properties. (E.g. somewhere in the wilds of Northumberland.) Make sure it isn’t designated as a SSSI, or similar, then get planning permission – again, it’s not entirely yours to do with as you wish, but as long as you’re building something well inside the many acres you’ve bought, it’s unlikely you’ll be prevented from doing so – and build whatever you like, from a shed to a 50-room mansion.
*
That said, planning laws exist for a very good reason: how would you like it if your neighbour decided to build a 10-story block in their back garden, blotting out, and overlooking, yours? What if your other neighbour decides to hold very loud music concerts in the field that backs right up to your back garden? If your respective properties are surrounded by vast acres of land, it’s less of a problem. If you’re all on the same Victorian-era terrace of two-up, two-down housing, it’s rather more of a problem.
Your right to do as you wish with your property ends the moment it impinges on the rights of others to do likewise. And, in a Conservation Area, that includes the right of those others to live in an area that retains its original character.
Democracy actually works best at these smaller scales: local and regional councils are much closer to their communities (when done right) than Westminster – let alone Brussels or Strasbourg – can ever hope to be.
The closer together we live to each other, the more delicate the balancing act. As I said in an earlier comment: in a democracy, the opinions of the few should not ride roughshod over the opinions of the many.
In this instance, the opinion of the guy with the sky-fairy fetish does not void the agreement he made to adhere to the Conservation Area’s rules.
“Fundamentally, if the good of the many trumps the good of you, you lose”
Er, the government don’t give two hoots for the ‘good of the many’ This is a fiction to convince the simple-minded. It’s simply force to support personal prejudice, nothing more.
“Er, the government don’t give two hoots for the ‘good of the many’ This is a fiction to convince the simple-minded. It’s simply force to support personal prejudice, nothing more.”
This isn’t about the government. It’s about the *local councils*. Westminster doesn’t get to decide on local and regional planning strategies throughout the land. That’s what local and county councils are for. And, yes, those are elected entities too.
You may prefer to take an entirely cynical perspective on the UK’s systems of government, and, having lived in Italy and France, where I could see better systems in action, with many local communities far more actively involved in their local and regional politics, I can’t blame you. Your reaction is a natural result of the UK’s pretend democracy.
Nevertheless, you haven’t invalidated my point: I never claimed the British system was perfect.
“as long as you’re building something well inside the many acres you’ve bought, it’s unlikely you’ll be prevented from doing so – and build whatever you like, from a shed to a 50-room mansion”
If its outside the settlement boundary and thus deemed countryside, it is near certain you’ll be prevented from doing so.
Even if you buy a farm? Those are rather large and have plenty of land to buffer you from all those unwanted neighbours.
Albert Dryden may have held a similar opinion regarding being ‘allowed’ to do what he wanted on his land, the agents of the state took a somewhat less enlightened view (and they were wrong).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Dryden
It’s also wrong that I still find the fact that he shot the copper in the arse quaintly amusing, for which I offer an insincere apology.
A few more details for you here, as it clarifies the fact that he built the bungalow largely underground to avoid it ‘spoiling’ others’ views.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=172600
Aye? And some bastard want to build a glowing green nuclear power station the size of three red squares two feet from your garden fence, thats O.K, because “It is HIS land”???
See my comments elsewhere about causing harm.
“First thing, in case you were wondering, is the pigeons.”
If I get there first, it’ll be people who don’t indicate when turning…
I’m not sure on this one. I think property rights are paramount but I also believe in researching what you are buying before you buy it.
If you move in next to a mosque I would say you have no right to complain about the wailing, even though it infringes your property rights. If a mosque wants to move in next to you then you have a right to complain.
Same thing with moving into a conservation area. You don’t move in and then put up a huge neon sign.
If you were there first and the locals asked you to move the sign because they want to become a conservation area, fair enough, tell them to go jump.
(Personally, the sign wouldn’t bother me if it were my neighbour. I would put up my own sign that says C*NT ➡ )
My point is more fundamental than that – the whole issue of enforced conservation areas is wrong in principle. That’s my starting point. Of course, if the locals want to enter into a voluntary arrangement regarding conservation, then fine – providing it is renegotiable upon the sale of one of the properties to a new owner.
Fair point
My libertarian ideals tend make your argumant seductive but actually I think you are wrong on this occasion.
For most things I agree, your house you choose what to do, but there is always a caveat – not to the detriment of other people.
In the case of a conservation area scheme it’s something existing residents have decided, and was known when you moved there. Breaking it is to their detriment.
Also it’s no good having a loose voluntary agreement, it has to be enforced otherwise one person can come in, decide they don’t like it, and completely destroy the entire scheme. Not just temporarily while they are there but for ever, because the entire point of conservation is because it can’t be realistically replaced as it was.
The council are not the local residents, contrary to what Sean was arguing above. The council decides that it is a conservation area and backs up its restrictions with the threat of the law, not the local residents. Sure, I take your point about don’t buy a house in a conservation area, but I object to the concept in the first place, so the issue should not arise. Any such arrangement should be voluntarily negotiated – and, yes, if someone moves out and a new buyer moves in, then the negotiations start again.
The caveat about harm has already been covered.
15 years ago I spent six months living just off Chepstow Road in Newport. It was a total shithole of an area, though interestingly the RoP was not a prominent local fixture, which I presume it must be now if the chap in this article feels comfortable enough to put up his massive ridiculous sign! Whilst I agree that it is no-one’s business but his own what he puts outside his house, I reserve the right to call him a pillock for advertising his absurd, Middle Age beliefs. Except that’s ‘racist’ isn’t it..?
Yes, to all points.