Good to see that NE actually has the resources to take action in cases like this - they are massively under-resourced.
However, I wonder how much the cost of this to the developer - £14500 - most of which are court costs - is actually a deterrent. That is not a lot for many developments, and I can see that it would be tempting to simply write it off as an acceptable cost.
There was no mention of whether they developer was required, as a result of this judgement, to add the access tiles and replace the felt as the original licence required either.
3 Comments
GreyShuck@feddit.uk · 9 pts · 2y
Good to see that NE actually has the resources to take action in cases like this - they are massively under-resourced.
However, I wonder how much the cost of this to the developer - £14500 - most of which are court costs - is actually a deterrent. That is not a lot for many developments, and I can see that it would be tempting to simply write it off as an acceptable cost.
There was no mention of whether they developer was required, as a result of this judgement, to add the access tiles and replace the felt as the original licence required either.
Big_Twerp@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 2y
It looks like they might be made to replace the roof lining (otherwise they would be contravening their planning commitments) so that will cost them.
jonne@infosec.pub · 5 pts · 2y
Oi, you got a loicence for those bats?