'illegal' mock-Tudor castle he tried to hide behind 40ft hay bales

epz_2

planning_officer wrote: »

Well, harm to the Green Belt for a start - duh! Imagine new houses everywhere all over the country, urban areas sprawling over the countryside, resulting in increased travelling, more pollution, more roads needed.. need I go on?!

And GB totals 13% of the country, not the ridiculous 87% you quote!!

My bad on the %greenbelt, I should have said 87% of the country is green ie non industrial/housing.

13% is still a MASSIVE amount of land to have a blanket computer says no attitude to building on.

combwork

Isn't there some provision under the green belt planing restrictions to allow new build if the house is of "exceptional architectural value"? It's not that big a jump from architectural to art, so bearing in mind what the Tate gallery classes as modern art, I would think he could claim that his mixture of building styles could be of exceptional architectural value. Whether it's up to him to prove that it is, or up the the planners to prove that it isn't is a mote point but either way art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Proving that it isn't of exceptional architectural value would be nigh on impossible.

Palm_Centro

Not quite correct, residential is four years both for change of use and development.

harryhound

:DI've just spent 15 minutes getting my head round "Mote point", "Mute point" & "Moot point",
I'm now more cultured, totally confused and living somewhere near Rockall.:D

RDB

crazygaijin wrote: »

Yes lots of people are doing this sort of thing now.

Something like a Hobit hole out of lord of the rings.

Or I like something like the teletubbies house, from the air its invisable.

There is a big comunity online, I will give you the link if you want.

Its a good idea to bury a park home, you would have good insulation get a nice log stove in the middle very warm in winter.
You said about Mr Fidler not thinking it through, well have you? Its not as easy as you think.

What about drainage? How will you suport the roof etc?

I can see many problems.

Sounds interesting can you please post the link?

Why would people live underground anyway? Is it because they didnt get permission to build and havent got the balls that Mr Fidler has?
Or is it because they think times are going to get very bad and want to hide for protection or something?

MX5huggy

This one in Pembrokeshire is

"One of the favoured modern structures was the £1 million Druidston house - holiday home for Labour MP and millionaire lawyer Bob Marshall-Andrews and his wife Jill"

From http://archive.thisispembrokeshire.net/2004/8/11/3433.html
See
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/18618

In comparisum to this place that took 10years to get permission after it was built

http://thatroundhouse.info/

novazombie

MX5huggy wrote: »

This one in Pembrokeshire is

"One of the favoured modern structures was the £1 million Druidston house - holiday home for Labour MP and millionaire lawyer Bob Marshall-Andrews and his wife Jill"

From http://archive.thisispembrokeshire.net/2004/8/11/3433.html
See
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/18618

In comparisum to this place that took 10years to get permission after it was built

http://thatroundhouse.info/

This is cool

http://www.s4c.co.uk/tycymreig/e_p8main.shtml

I want to build something like this.

http://moose.spesh.com/teletubbies/house.html

So it seems Mr fidler has proved you dont need planning permision.

You can just build what you like these days and get away with it like he did.

planning_officer

epz wrote: »

My bad on the %greenbelt, I should have said 87% of the country is green ie non industrial/housing.

13% is still a MASSIVE amount of land to have a blanket computer says no attitude to building on.

But that's just it - that's such a misconception - it's not a balanket 'no' to all development, it's just that development is much more strictly controlled. Of course some development is necessary, to allow rural areas and villages to thrive, such as affordable housing, etc.

planning_officer

crazygaijin wrote: »

It all goes to show if you throw enough money at the problem it goes away.

Er, no - the house has to be demolished by May this year and nothing is going to get Mr Fidler out of that one! I know the planning agent Mr Fidler used at his inquiry, which he lost - which I'm quite pleased about as I've also won a Hearing against him!

crazygaijin wrote: »

What will happen in the end, will it still be standing this time next year? The year after?

Nope - see above!

planning_officer

novazombie wrote: »

So it seems Mr fidler has proved you dont need planning permision.

You can just build what you like these days and get away with it like he did.

Er, how do you work that one out? He built it, he didn't comply with the Enforcement Notice, he appealed it, he comprehensively lost, and now he has until May to demolish it and return the land to agriculture, otherwise the Council will do it for him!