3 ms·
I think that if this vote was legally binding, it could end up being challenged in courts, as national laws overcome the local ones, and I doubt there's a natio
by maratc 4y ago
I think that if this vote was legally binding, it could end up being challenged in courts, as national laws overcome the local ones, and I doubt there's a national law that can limit the right of people do things — even things that I personally consider stupid (like owning Rolls-Royces, private jets, or multiple summer houses.)
Seeing this was just an official opinion poll, though, it's mostly irrelevant.
- SilverBirch 4y agoThis is just about how you phrase the rule. In the UK local planning authorities have the right to approve or deny planning applications so it's perfectly within the council's power to stop people from doing anything covered by planning approval, so that's one way they could limit it.
- maratc 4y agoThe application writers and the approving authorities can't make whatever rules they want. I think that if there is anything outrageous in the planning application, and it gets approved by the local authority, it can still be challenged in a court. I am certain, for example, that if the planning application would include a clause banning e.g. blacks, LGBT, or non-Anglicans from buying a property, this would be shot down later, even if approved. The question is, whether limiting current homeowners from buying a property would stand up to the courts' scrutiny or not.
- SilverBirch 4y agoSure, it's possible it would get challenged, but I don't think this really comes anywhere close to something obviously discriminatory.