FeaturedUK

Locals celebrate victory in ‘David v Goliath’ fight against developer | UK | News

Locals in a Norfolk market town are celebrating the rejection of plans to demolish their homes as part of a largescale revamp. Residents of the Abbey Estate in Thetford have spent the last six years afraid their family homes could be knocked down by a housing association. In what has been described as a “David versus Goliath” battle, they were pitted against Bromford Flagship, a firm that owns over half of the houses on the estate and had proposed a major revamp including rebuilding over 1,000 properties.

After a four hour meeting on Thursday, local councillors opposed the project, however, allowing long-term tenants to finally breathe a sigh of relief. Fiona Kiane, who has lived on the estate for 25 years and whose home could have become a car park under the plans, said she was “absolutely elated” by the news.

“From by back garden to my front gate, it’s mine and I own it,” she told the BBC. “I spent a lot of money and I’ve paid my mortgage and this is all mine now.

“It just makes me feel angry that people can come in and decide this is the fate of the estate when they know nothing about is. I’m passionate about my house. I want to live here for the rest of my life.”

The revamp of the Abbey Estate, which was built in the 1960s and ’70s, was announced in 2019 as part of a £250 million plan for “long term improvements” at the site, which is one of the most deprived neighbourhoods in England.

“I’m absolutely elated. It’s like winning the lottery,” Ms Kiane said.

Jen Barrett, who has lived on the estate for over 50 years, added: “I am chuffed. It feels like we stood up to the big money. They think they can walk all over you.”

“Before today, we thought we’d probably lose,” she told the Eastern Daily Press. “It’s amazing.”

The planning committee members rejected the proposal on the grounds that the emotional distress it would cause outweighed any benefits, including the provision of 500 new council houses.

Dave Armstrong, chief operating officer at the housing association, said: “We’re naturally disappointed, but we fully respect the decision and the views that have been shared.

“We’ve heard that change is needed, and we remain committed to working with the council and the community to make that happen.”

Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 82