[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

You asked:

Are you serious with this question?
Even if you believe the work carried out was justified to fain having no knowledge of the damage is really quite laughable

[/i]
Yes, I'm serious with the question, so I'll repeat it and you can answer it.

So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course.

[/b]

Then you asked:

But didn't you say the same thing?

[/i]

NO, I didn't.

Then, I asked the following questions:

Did he conform to the permitting process ?
Did he build to code ?
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?

[/i]

You answered "NO" to every one of them.

Would you therefore detail,  how, where and when he didn't conform to the permitting process, how, where and when he didn't build to code and how, when and where he didn't conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?

Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

We'd need membership at the same golf club and an enormous amount of time in the 19th to move this on any further and, frankly, I wouldn't wish us upon the rest of the members! Now that gets me thinking; maybe I could seek membership at Trump International and bore people out of visiting, or at least revisiting! Actually, unless I had any great desire to ambush people from behind sand dunes, why bother with membership? I could just set myself up in the clubhouse with a massive hip flask of a certain banned Scottish whisky, claim squatters rights and preach from there.


Paul,

I thought that's what we've been doing all along 

Maybe Donald could get a Compulsory Purchase Order on me.

Famous last words, and not words I can absolutely promise to stick to, but I'm out. Nonetheless Patrick, it's been fun.

Agreed.

I hope the project enjoys enormous success and that everyone benefits from the golf, hotel and residential components

I had heard that the golf course has already secured a major event and that more may be in the wings.

I wish the project and all those associated with it, well

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

You asked:

Are you serious with this question?
Even if you believe the work carried out was justified to fain having no knowledge of the damage is really quite laughable

[/i]
Yes, I'm serious with the question, so I'll repeat it and you can answer it.

So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course.

[/b]

Destroying parts of a shifting dune for example.


Then you asked:

But didn't you say the same thing?

[/i]

NO, I didn't.

I am sure I read it on one of the many threads Patrick. I will have a look later if you insist

Then, I asked the following questions:

Did he conform to the permitting process ?
Did he build to code ?
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?

[/i]

You answered "NO" to every one of them.

Would you therefore detail,  how, where and when he didn't conform to the permitting process, how, where and when he didn't build to code and how, when and where he didn't conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?

The first one that comes to mind is the removal, transport and storage of sand. Another was the erection of earth dams. There are plenty more but I think that suffices

Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

You asked:

Are you serious with this question?
Even if you believe the work carried out was justified to fain having no knowledge of the damage is really quite laughable

[/i]
Yes, I'm serious with the question, so I'll repeat it and you can answer it.

So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course.

[/b]

Destroying parts of a shifting dune for example.

What parts ?
Didn't he get permission to construct a golf course in very specific and limited areas ?
Did his work go beyond his specifically permitted areas ?
Or did he confine his work to the permitted areas ?


Then you asked:

But didn't you say the same thing?

[/i]

NO, I didn't.

I am sure I read it on one of the many threads Patrick. I will have a look later if you insist

OK, I'd appreciate seeing the citation.

Then, I asked the following questions:

Did he conform to the permitting process ?
Did he build to code ?
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?

[/i]

You answered "NO" to every one of them.

Would you therefore detail,  how, where and when he didn't conform to the permitting process, how, where and when he didn't build to code and how, when and where he didn't conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?

The first one that comes to mind is the removal, transport and storage of sand.


And you're making the claim that he removed, transported and stored sand without approvals.
Can you provide concrete documentation supporting each allegation contained in your claim ?

Another was the erection of earth dams.


Would you provide the documents supporting the allegation that he erected earthen dams with permitting approval ?


There are plenty more but I think that suffices

Please list them for us.
We can investigate whether there's supporting documentation to veryify your claim at a later date.

Thanks

Thanks

[Ross Tuddenham]

Patrick

Can you provide concrete documentation supporting each allegation contained in your claim ?

We can investigate whether there's supporting documentation to veryify your claim at a later date.

It is clear you are a trump fan, but surely you are not a birther as well? 

If you check out the scottish natural heritage website they mention that they must be informed of any work to be carried out on an sssi.

http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-areas/national-designations/sssis/sssi-management/

It would also seem that they need to provide approval for the work to go ahead.

In the next document it is pretty clear they think the level of impact on the sssi would be high and that without alterations the project should not have gone ahead.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/216107/0057821.pdf

If the plans for the course were not altered after this consultation then any of the work Jon mentioned would be causing great harm to the environment.

From their own press release

"Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has written to Aberdeenshire Council advising them
that part of the proposed development at Menie would, in its view, seriously damage
an important nature conservation site and sand dune habitats. The extensive
, assessment by SNH details damage to Foveran Links Site of Special Scientific
interest (SSSI)."


So unless you doubt the knowledge and skills of those working at SNH, it is hard to see how any amount of work could "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course, no matter how much effort was made.

[Chris DeNigris]

Ross,

You're a little late to the party....the SNH role and stance in the shifting Menie sands SSSI saga has been well documented (and well criticized)on the previoius Trump International threads. They (SNH) are as biased in thier views and interpretations as Mr. Trump is regarding his.

A better document for you to consult is the Report to Scottish Ministers which gives an unbiased and factual depiction of all aspects of the saga, from start to nearly the finish.

There is much evidence in the factual record to support many of Patrick's claims and refute many of the anti-Trump claims....especially the ones regarding the support of the local community and the "devastation" and massive destruction of the SSSI.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

Can you provide concrete documentation supporting each allegation contained in your claim ?

We can investigate whether there's supporting documentation to veryify your claim at a later date.

It is clear you are a trump fan, but surely you are not a birther as well? 

It's not that I'm a "Trump fan" as much as I'm a defender against allegations that would appear to be false.

On the other issue, I've presented my birth certificate every time I was requested to do so.... without undue delay.
Ditto my school transcripts.

If you check out the scottish natural heritage website they mention that they must be informed of any work to be carried out on an sssi.

The Scottish Natural Heritage ?  Isn't that the same organization that opposes the wind turbine project ?
Let's see, Trump opposes the project and he's demonized, but, the SNH opposes the project and they're the protectors of the land.
And you and others don't see the hypocrisy ?  ?  ?

http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-areas/national-designations/sssis/sssi-management/

It would also seem that they need to provide approval for the work to go ahead.

In the next document it is pretty clear they think the level of impact on the sssi would be high and that without alterations the project should not have gone ahead.

That's just their opinion.
And we know that others, in a position of authority, dismissed their opinion and approved the project.
We know that the project went ahead with the blessings of the Scottish Government.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/216107/0057821.pdf

If the plans for the course were not altered after this consultation then any of the work Jon mentioned would be causing great harm to the environment.

That's blatantly false and you know it.

I want you and Jon to document where Trump was in violation and cited for failure to obtain or adhere to permits.

From their own press release

"Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has written to Aberdeenshire Council advising them
that part of the proposed development at Menie would, in its view, seriously damage
an important nature conservation site and sand dune habitats. The extensive
, assessment by SNH details damage to Foveran Links Site of Special Scientific
interest (SSSI)."

That's their opinion, an opinion not shared by those in authority in the Scottish Government who voted to proceed with the project, subject to permitting approvals.  Trump received the legal approvals and proceeded with the project as planned and approved.

So unless you doubt the knowledge and skills of those working at SNH,

I don't necessarily doubt their knowledge or skill, in much the same manner that I don't necessarily doubt the knowledge and skill of the CCC, it's their perspective, motives and bias that I might disagree with.

it is hard to see how any amount of work could "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course, no matter how much effort was made.

Evidently the governing/ruling bodies disagreed with you since they declared/ruled that the project should go forth.

I asked for concrete documentation from Jon and is all I get is hollow accusations on matters past.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

You asked:

Are you serious with this question?
Even if you believe the work carried out was justified to fain having no knowledge of the damage is really quite laughable

[/i]
Yes, I'm serious with the question, so I'll repeat it and you can answer it.

So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course.

[/b]

Destroying parts of a shifting dune for example.

What parts ?
Didn't he get permission to construct a golf course in very specific and limited areas ?
Did his work go beyond his specifically permitted areas ?
Or did he confine his work to the permitted areas ?

(CAPS FOR CLARITY NOT SHOUTING ) YOUR QUESTION WAS NEVER 'DID HE HAVE PERMISSION' BUT RATHER 'So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course'


Then you asked:

But didn't you say the same thing?

[/i]

NO, I didn't.

I am sure I read it on one of the many threads Patrick. I will have a look later if you insist

OK, I'd appreciate seeing the citation.

Then, I asked the following questions:

Did he conform to the permitting process ?
Did he build to code ?
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?

[/i]

You answered "NO" to every one of them.

Would you therefore detail,  how, where and when he didn't conform to the permitting process, how, where and when he didn't build to code and how, when and where he didn't conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?

The first one that comes to mind is the removal, transport and storage of sand.


And you're making the claim that he removed, transported and stored sand without approvals.
Can you provide concrete documentation supporting each allegation contained in your claim ?

NO PATRICK, IT IS NOT WHAT BUT HOW AS YOU WELL KNOW

Another was the erection of earth dams.


Would you provide the documents supporting the allegation that he erected earthen dams with permitting approval ?

I SUSPECT IT IS A TYPO ON YOUR PART. I CAN NOT PROVIDE THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF HIS PERMISSION TO BUILD THE EARTH DAMS AS IT DOES NOT EXIST

There are plenty more but I think that suffices

Please list them for us.
We can investigate whether there's supporting documentation to veryify your claim at a later date.

Thanks

Thanks

Patrick,

you know full well that I am not going to waste my time providing you with information that even if stated beyond and shadow of a doubt that you are wrong you will simply not accept. Please do provide me with the permission to construct the earthern dams around the old coastgaurd's station if you can though I suspect you may have trouble as it does not exist.

Jon

[Ally Mcintosh]

There was a time - many, many years ago - when this thread actually discussed the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

Your inability to cite where Trump violated permits and broke Scotttish laws is proof enough for me.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

Your inability to cite where Trump violated permits and broke Scotttish laws is proof enough for me.

I have said where I believe he violated the permit. Now you are trying to say that because I can not prove where Trump broke the law it proves your argument. Can you point out where did I say he broke Scottish laws?

To be honest it is a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you as you are unable to accept even the most provable of facts if it does not fit you view of the world.

Jon

PS. reply 357

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

Your inability to cite where Trump violated permits and broke Scotttish laws is proof enough for me.

I have said where I believe he violated the permit.

Oh, so now it's where you believe, not where the Scottish Authorities who oversee these matters believe.

 Now you are trying to say that because I can not prove where Trump broke the law it proves your argument.

You claimed he broke the law.
I said, "prove it"
You can't prove it and admit so.
Of course that proves my argument


Can you point out where did I say he broke Scottish laws?

Of course I can.
You sure have a short memory.
I asked you:
Did he conform to the permitting process ?
You said, "NO"
I asked you:
Did he build to code ?
You said, "NO"
I asked you:
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?
You said, "NO"

Now I don't know how they judge things in your neck of the woods, but you just declared and told us that he didn't conform to the permitting process, that he didn't build to code and that he didn't conform to Scottish rules and regulations.  Where I come from that means he broke the law.
Are you that obtuse that you don't understand your own words, or is it that your dislike for Trump has blinded your judgement and ability to discern
what breaking rules and regulations means ?

To be honest it is a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you as you are unable to accept even the most provable of facts if it does not fit you view of the world.

What a joke.
The waste of time is that you can't remember what you typed.
The waste of time is that you contradict yourself.
One moment you tell us that Trump broke the law and in the next you ask where you said that.
The waste of time is that you made allegations and when asked to document them, you can't, and then you declare that I won't accept the facts, when you've been unable to produce them.
You're not a waste of time, you're a joke and it's on us for paying any attention to your unsubstantiated accusations.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Now I don't know how they judge things in your neck of the woods, but you just declared and told us that he didn't conform to the permitting process, that he didn't build to code and that he didn't conform to Scottish rules and regulations.  Where I come from that means he broke the law.

I don't look at it as lying, I look at it as trying to mislead the opposition.

Where exactly do you come from  

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

permitting clauses, Building Rules & Regs for landscape construction are not technically part of the Criminal Law here. Rules and regulations are not the same as law.

You're not a waste of time, you're a joke and it's on us for paying any attention to your unsubstantiated accusations.
[/b][/size][/color]

Temper, temper Patrick. Try not to get so wound up, its not as if you are being taken seriously the way you debate

Jon

[Niall C]

There was a time - many, many years ago - when this thread actually discussed the course.

That's a damn lie, just you retract it !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Now I don't know how they judge things in your neck of the woods, but you just declared and told us that he didn't conform to the permitting process, that he didn't build to code and that he didn't conform to Scottish rules and regulations. 
Where I come from that means he broke the law.

I don't look at it as lying, I look at it as trying to mislead the opposition.

Donal, there are some shows on TV called "Pawn Stars", "Cajun Pawn Stars" and "Hardcore Pawn Stars"

In each episode, the seller says, "I can't take less than X".  The buyer says, "I can't pay more than Y"
In the end, they shift off of X and Y to other dollar amounts.
The buyer takes less and the seller pays more.
Were they lying or just negotiating ?

When you buy something, do you always pay what you're asked to pay, or do you negotiate ?

Trump's just negotiating, that's what he does and he does it fairly well.

Where exactly do you come from  

I come from a place where I don't blindly pay what the list price is.

I also come from a place where people are able to clearly distinguish between violations of the rules, regulations and laws and posturing and bluffing during negotiations.

If I look up the word "naive" in the dictionary, am I going to find your picture ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

permitting clauses, Building Rules & Regs for landscape construction are not technically part of the Criminal Law here.

So you're stating that in Scotland you can violate the building rules and regulations with impunity, that there's no fear of being cited, no punishment for violating those rules and regulations.  Well, if there's no sanctions for violating them, why have them ?
What I really think is that you don't know what you're talking about.

Please cite the rules and regulations that Trump broke.

Rules and regulations are not the same as law.

Tell us how they differ and what the consequences are for violating rules and regulations.
Hard to believe that there's no sanctions for violating regulations.

By the way, why didn't you rise up in arms when the Scottish Natural Heritage objected to the Wind Turbines, just like Trump did ?

You're not a waste of time, you're a joke and it's on us for paying any attention to your unsubstantiated accusations.
[/b][/size][/color]

Temper, temper Patrick. Try not to get so wound up, its not as if you are being taken seriously the way you debate

Jon, believe me, I'm neither wound up nor having a fit of temper, I'm just enjoying myself.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Pat
How many courses have you played in Scotland?
Please list the top 10+, in relative order, that you'd like to play if you were to go in the next several years.
Will you play them all realistically?
Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

How many courses have you played in Scotland?


Half a dozen or so.

Please list the top 10+, in relative order, that you'd like to play if you were to go in the next several years.


I couldn't give you relative order since my "play list" would be geographically/accomodations driven.

But, I'd like to playL
Carnoustie
Machrihanish
Dornoch
Nairn
Aberdeen
Boat of Garten
Cruden Bay
Muirfield
Trump
Brora
Mussleburgh
Kingsbarn

Will you play them all realistically?

Realistically, I won't play any of them.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

Glad I not offended you

I suggest you look up the difference between rule and law in the dictionary and you will find they are not technically the same although you can be sanctioned for breaking either.

Before you carry on throwing mud around could you answer the question you seem desperate to avoid answering (and it is obvious why)

The earthen dams that were constructed around the old coastguard's station were not part of any agreement either in or out of the planning. As such they are non permitted development and therefore not allowed as part of the building regs. This proves my point so either find where they are allowed in the planning permission or simply admit what most here already know, that you are wrong.

Solid play list you have.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Glad I not offended you

I suggest you look up the difference between rule and law in the dictionary and you will find they are not technically the same although you can be sanctioned for breaking either.

Jon, how convenient of you to forget about "Regulations", which I specifically cited.

Since you brought up the dictionary, let me offer a few definitions.
'Regulation"   A rule, ordinance, or law by which conduct is regulated."
"Rule"  An authoritative regulation for action.
          Government; reign; control
          a regulation or guide established by a court, governing court practice and procedure
          a declaration order, etc. made by a judge or court in deciding a specific question or point of law
          a legal principal or maxim

I asked, did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations and you responded "NO"
So which rules and regulations did he break ?
Please cite them.

Before you carry on throwing mud around could you answer the question you seem desperate to avoid answering (and it is obvious why)

The earthen dams that were constructed around the old coastguard's station were not part of any agreement either in or out of the planning.
How do you know ?
And how do you know that he didn't obtain subsequent approval ?
Was he cited for any violation ?

As such they are non permitted development and therefore not allowed as part of the building regs.


Once again, both the fact base and the allegations you make are strictly your interpretation.
Was he cited for any violation ?
IF not, then one has to question your fact base, your allegations and your conclusions.

This proves my point so either find where they are allowed in the planning permission or simply admit what most here already know, that you are wrong.

Only in your mind, nothing you've stated proves your point.
You should have been able to post the citations you allege he received for violating his permits, codes, rules and regulations.
Yet, you've failed to produce a single document supporting and substantiating your claims.
And you think that proves you right ? ?  ?


Solid play list you have.

Wish I'd embarked upon it years ago.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

Thanks for the reply which shows that rule, regulation and law are not the same thing though related  .

For proof of the construction of the earthen dams I suggest you look at the many photos, film clips and statement in the newspaper as to their existence. I of course have seen them myself when visiting last month so I know they exist. Of course you can still carry on denying their existence if this keeps your world on an even keel.

The reason that I can not find any documentation about them being illegal is here in Scotland we do not usually include any of the things that go under 'non permitted development and it would surprise me if they did in your part of the world. As such the non existence of the earthen dams in the planning permission is proof that they were not permitted. It is more than possible that such infringements have been noted to the developer but such things are not so often made public being looked up on as oversights. It would only be after repeated warnings about non compliance that any court action would be taken so there would clearly be no realistic expectancy of a court case at the moment.

The facts are earthen dams exist. They are not in the planning permission. They are therefore non permitted development which is non compliance with the planning permission. This is not a breach of the law Patrick but a non compliance of the building regs. The developer therefore needs to either get the planning permission amended to include the earthen dams or remove them so as to comply with the planning permission. If the developer fails to do either then he will be served with a 'notice of compliance' which if not complied with will then lead to a prosecution. It is the non compliance with the 'notice of compliance' which breaks the law not the building of the earthen dams which is a breach of planning permission.

As you have not been able to answer the very clear and easy question my point is proved 

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Thanks for the reply which shows that rule, regulation and law are not the same thing though related  .

Next time a friend of yours gets audited by the IRS, tell them that the IRS regulations aren't the same thing as the LAW.
Also, please provide your friend with your mailing address so that he can keep in touch from Leavenworth.


For proof of the construction of the earthen dams I suggest you look at the many photos, film clips and statement in the newspaper as to their existence. I of course have seen them myself when visiting last month so I know they exist. Of course you can still carry on denying their existence if this keeps your world on an even keel.

Jon, have you seen either the permits allowing for their construction or the citations issued due to failure to comply ?
How can you devine the legal status of the earthenworks ?  ?  ?

The reason that I can not find any documentation about them being illegal is here in Scotland we do not usually include any of the things that go under 'non permitted development and it would surprise me if they did in your part of the world.

Then how can you make unsubstantiated allegations ?

As such the non existence of the earthen dams in the planning permission is proof that they were not permitted.

NO, it's not.
That's an absurd conclusion, one totally absent logic.
You are aware that plans get amended/altered after their initial creation and submission, no ? ? ?

It is more than possible that such infringements have been noted to the developer but such things are not so often made public being looked up on as oversights.

Are you saying that the local, regional and national Scottish Authorities were complicit in a cover up ?
That the SNH and other opponents remained silent regarding these alleged transgressions ?

It would only be after repeated warnings about non compliance that any court action would be taken so there would clearly be no realistic expectancy of a court case at the moment.

Baloney, or Bologna, depending how you like it.
With the high profile nature of this project you can bet your last dollar that the scrutiny placed on every phase of the project was intense and that any violations would have been reported to the authorities and the press.

The facts are earthen dams exist. They are not in the planning permission. They are therefore non permitted development which is non compliance with the planning permission.

John, only a moron, even a nice polite moron knows that your "chain of logic" is deeply flawed.
Plan and work order changes are almost inevitable in any and every project.
To declare that earthenworks not reflected in the original plans are proof of a violation is absurd.
It ignores the fact that many plans are altered after approvals.

This is not a breach of the law Patrick but a non compliance of the building regs.

No it's not.
You don't know if the earthenworks were approved.
You seem to know that Trump wasn't cited for any violation regarding those earthenworks, ergo, by your logic, he had permission.

The developer therefore needs to either get the planning permission amended to include the earthen dams or remove them so as to comply with the planning permission.


You don't know if he did that, choosing instead to declare that he didn't.
Absent any citation for the violation you allege occured, a prudent man would have to conclude that he sought and received approvals.

If the developer fails to do either then he will be served with a 'notice of compliance' which if not complied with will then lead to a prosecution.


OK, so where's the "notice of compliance" documentation.
Surely that has to be part of the public record.
If there is none, again, the prudent man rule would dictate that he sought and received approvals

It is the non compliance with the 'notice of compliance' which breaks the law not the building of the earthen dams which is a breach of planning permission.

Either way, documented citations have to be issued.
WHERE ARE THEY ?
If none exist, he must have sought and received approval.

As you have not been able to answer the very clear and easy question my point is proved 

Some advice.

1     What ever you do, do not attempt to defend yourself in any civil or criminal matter, even a traffic ticket.
2     Seek the aid of an attorney.
3     Take some courses in "logic" at your local university.

[Mark Chaplin]

Patrick - where did you qualify in Scottish and British law? If I need a solicitor you are assured of being hired.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

Thanks for the reply which shows that rule, regulation and law are not the same thing though related  .

Next time a friend of yours gets audited by the IRS, tell them that the IRS regulations aren't the same thing as the LAW.
Also, please provide your friend with your mailing address so that he can keep in touch from Leavenworth.


Patrick, there is no IRS in Scotland.

For proof of the construction of the earthen dams I suggest you look at the many photos, film clips and statement in the newspaper as to their existence. I of course have seen them myself when visiting last month so I know they exist. Of course you can still carry on denying their existence if this keeps your world on an even keel.

Jon, have you seen either the permits allowing for their construction or the citations issued due to failure to comply ?
How can you devine the legal status of the earthenworks ?  ?  ?

To answer your first question, they are not contained within the planning permission document including amendments. As to the second part, this shows your obvious lack of knowledge about what you are trying to discuss. Here in Scotland any work not detailed within the approved planning permission which is outside of permitted development (both of these are documents available for viewing by the general public which I suggest you do so as to be a little better informed) would be considered as 'non permissible'. When such is discovered by th planning authorities the developer will firstly be made aware of the issue and given time to rectify by altering to comply with the permission or to submit an amendment to the approved plans. This is a process that can take some while and even then any written compliance notice would not become a document of public interest and so not be made public.

As to how do you define the legal status of the earthworks, I don't have to,. Why would I?

The reason that I can not find any documentation about them being illegal is here in Scotland we do not usually include any of the things that go under 'non permitted development and it would surprise me if they did in your part of the world.

Then how can you make unsubstantiated allegations ?


As such the non existence of the earthen dams in the planning permission is proof that they were not permitted.

NO, it's not.
That's an absurd conclusion, one totally absent logic.
You are aware that plans get amended/altered after their initial creation and submission, no ? ? ?

So find the amendment Patrick. I doubt you can however as it does not exist

It is more than possible that such infringements have been noted to the developer but such things are not so often made public being looked up on as oversights.

Are you saying that the local, regional and national Scottish Authorities were complicit in a cover up ?
That the SNH and other opponents remained silent regarding these alleged transgressions ?

No

It would only be after repeated warnings about non compliance that any court action would be taken so there would clearly be no realistic expectancy of a court case at the moment.

Baloney, or Bologna, depending how you like it.
With the high profile nature of this project you can bet your last dollar that the scrutiny placed on every phase of the project was intense and that any violations would have been reported to the authorities and the press.

Indeed, they have been featured in the press and even on the telly

The facts are earthen dams exist. They are not in the planning permission. They are therefore non permitted development which is non compliance with the planning permission.


John, only a moron, even a nice polite moron knows that your "chain of logic" is deeply flawed.
Plan and work order changes are almost inevitable in any and every project.
To declare that earthenworks not reflected in the original plans are proof of a violation is absurd.
It ignores the fact that many plans are altered after approvals.

Patrice, read my previous statement. I do not mention 'original' just 'planning permission'. As I have said many time if they are in the planning permission find them

This is not a breach of the law Patrick but a non compliance of the building regs.

No it's not.
You don't know if the earthenworks were approved.
You seem to know that Trump wasn't cited for any violation regarding those earthenworks, ergo, by your logic, he had permission.

Patrick, if it is not in the planning permission then it is not permitted what is so difficult to understand.

The developer therefore needs to either get the planning permission amended to include the earthen dams or remove them so as to comply with the planning permission.


You don't know if he did that, choosing instead to declare that he didn't.
Absent any citation for the violation you allege occured, a prudent man would have to conclude that he sought and received approvals.

No, a prudent man would know that there had not been sufficient time for it to have reached the court process stage and therefore come into the public realm.

If the developer fails to do either then he will be served with a 'notice of compliance' which if not complied with will then lead to a prosecution.


OK, so where's the "notice of compliance" documentation.Not so far along
Surely that has to be part of the public record.No, it would not be on public record. Only if it were the SE as developer would this be the case
If there is none, again, the prudent man rule would dictate that he sought and received approvals

If he had and received approval then there would be an amendment to the planning permission which there is not. The prudent man would therefore conclude he had yet to get such

It is the non compliance with the 'notice of compliance' which breaks the law not the building of the earthen dams which is a breach of planning permission.

Either way, documented citations have to be issued.
WHERE ARE THEY ?
If none exist, he must have sought and received approval.

As you have not been able to answer the very clear and easy question my point is proved 

Some advice.

1     What ever you do, do not attempt to defend yourself in any civil or criminal matter, even a traffic ticket.
2     Seek the aid of an attorney.
3     Take some courses in "logic" at your local university.

It is clear that you are under the illusion that this is all covered by US laws. Here in Scotland we have an older and some say more refined law. Please try to make sure your posts stay relevant to Scottish laws, rules and regulations.

Finally Patrick, either find the relevant section in the planning permission or stop flogging the dead donkey. Admitting you are wrong is surely not so hard is it?

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()