That seems more like an example of how the "planning laws" are a nuisance and totally out of step with reality. If there were really some harm in the house bein

That seems more like an example of how the "planning laws" are a nuisance and totally out of step with reality. If there were really some harm in the house being there, surely somebody should have challenged it before 10 years. What harm is the court redressing in ordering it torn down?