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

planning_officer

combwork wrote: »

Isn't there some provision under the green belt planing restrictions to allow new build if the house is of "exceptional architectural value"?

Not really no - the main feature of the Green Belt is it's 'openness', i.e. any building reduces openness, so the architectural merit or otherwise of a development doesn't really come into play. Personally I think it's hideous anyway - it's innovative, certainly, but not my cup of tea!

combwork wrote: »

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 planners to prove that it isn't is a mote point but either way art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

It's either of exceptional architectural value, or a messy poorly integrated pastiche completely unrelated to its rural location - I know which I'd choose!! (although I do take your point about beauty being in the eye of the beholder).

Actually, it's not a moot point, as most new residential development in the Green Belt is inappropriate by definition (see Government guidance in PPG2), and the guidance makes it very clear that it is for the applicant to justify 'very special circumstances' to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Architectural merit is something that could just be repeated too often, so it's certainly not sufficient to allow such inappropriate development.

novazombie

planning_officer wrote: »

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!

Time will tell.

Isnt it true that he has been through this before yrs ago, they said he has to tear it down by May or something. Then the year after same sort of thing.

Maybe in 10yrs time, people will still be saying he has to knock it down next yr.

I will quote this in a few months time and we will see if it is still standing.

roddydogs

bump...........................

planning_officer

novazombie wrote: »

Time will tell.

Isnt it true that he has been through this before yrs ago, they said he has to tear it down by May or something. Then the year after same sort of thing.

Maybe in 10yrs time, people will still be saying he has to knock it down next yr.

I will quote this in a few months time and we will see if it is still standing.

I'm not aware of any previous requirement to demolish it - apart from the enforcement notice which would have required him to demolish it before. However, whilst an enforcement notice is being appealed against, the requirement is in effect suspended. As he has now lost his appeal against the enforcement notice, the 'official date' for demolishing it is now May this year (7th I think - it's in one of my previous posts). If he doesn't, he's committing a criminal offence and then the Council will do it for him and charge him the cost of demolition.

I believe he was investigating some ancient law which said the Queen could in effect pardon the demolition as it was a castle - or something ridiculous like that.... as if she's going to get involved!! He's as much chance of that happening as I have of becoming the next Pope...

lostinrates

I have to say, despite sharing planning officers views about the house itself, and totally being a strong advocate of a controlled planning system and the need to protect greenbelt, something really saddens me that he has lost. While not to my taste by all reports this was his dream and it appears it is to the tastes of many.

We are currently looking for a suitable place to build our home, and its a complicated process for the uninitiated. While I fully accept this process is not meant to be anti-home builders (as opposed to house builders) it does sometimes feel like that. Our eventual application will be, in a way, not unlike the castlebuilders and I suppose thats part of the reason I'm a little sad.

On initial enquiries, as far as I've got, the response of the planning dept can be almost hostile, which is horrid, as I will genuinely want to make the building as acceptable to everyone (planners, other local residents etc) but it seems some people dealing with initial enquiries want to turn it into a battle from the outset.

On the other hand, there is a really lovely guy in a planning department in an area we have reluctantly ruled out as impractical for our needs, who was so encouraging and helpful and clear on what would be out of the question but suggesting alternatives. When the land we were looking at when I called him sold to someone else he encouraged me to look for similar plots in the area and that my ideas sounded great. It must be a tough job, but he sounded passionate.

planning_officer

I hope you find a suitable plot - and I hope the relevant planning dept is not too hostile! Many depts are short staffed and short on resources, which never helps, but there are helpful planners out there!

lostinrates

planning_officer wrote: »

I hope you find a suitable plot - and I hope the relevant planning dept is not too hostile! Many depts are short staffed and short on resources, which never helps, but there are helpful planners out there!

LOL, no offence intended. I'm sure its a difficult job: everyone who calls must feel passionate about why they NEED to build what they are asking you about.

I'm very dispondant TBH. I really DO want to build something of 'architectural merit' and by necessity it needs to be rural where I can work from (looking at 50-100 ish acres, so rural and green ) but most planners don't want to discuss environmental aspects positively, or things not totally (albeit not frighteningly) normal in modern houses.

Actually, looking at how I've expressed that above I have more sympathy with them, but want we would like to do is not scary weird modern looking, nor hippy town looking!

ben500

lostinrates wrote: »

LOL, no offence intended. I'm sure its a difficult job: everyone who calls must feel passionate about why they NEED to build what they are asking you about.

I'm very dispondant TBH. I really DO want to build something of 'architectural merit' and by necessity it needs to be rural where I can work from (looking at 50-100 ish acres, so rural and green ) but most planners don't want to discuss environmental aspects positively, or things not totally (albeit not frighteningly) normal in modern houses.

Actually, looking at how I've expressed that above I have more sympathy with them, but want we would like to do is not scary weird modern looking, nor hippy town looking!

I'd certainly consider re-allocation of any monies set aside for the purchase of hay unless your planning on keeping horses though.

lostinrates

ben500 wrote: »

I'd certainly consider re-allocation of any monies set aside for the purchase of hay unless your planning on keeping horses though.

LOL. unfortunately for me I feel compelled to do everything honestly.

ben500

lostinrates wrote: »

LOL. unfortunately for me I feel compelled to do everything honestly.

That's commendable, however should you change your mind I'm thinking of going into a new business selling life size cardboard mock tudor shells, behind which you can build any hideous structure you desire, I'm sure this would be far more effective than hay bales and have the added attraction that they will deteriorate gradually due to exposure to the elements thus eliminating the need for removal and contravention of the planning laws, what do you think is it a goer?