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

lostinrates

ben500 wrote: »

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?

ROFL! In all possibilty....good luck!;)

..but isn't it terrible that people wanting to comply and have a good relationship with planners should fear this?

Debt_Free_Chick

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

That size of plot is almost certainly going to be agricultural - either with or without an existing dwelling - or a small stately home

And it could be in a National Park or AONB, further adding to your frustration.

I honestly don't find that environmental building practices are an issue - far from it, most planners are looking for it. But that doesn't necessarily dictate the final appearance/design of the building. With that size plot, the planners' main priority is going to be that the building is appropriate for the locality.

And .... the planners are not giving you their personal view of what is "appropriate" - it will be dictated by the Local Development Plan (LDP) and existing buildings. For example, where I am (High Weald), white weatherboard is the norm or Kent Peg Tiles fixed to the upper elevation.

You cannot change the Planners' requirements - they don't dictate them; the Planning Laws and LDP do that. The Planners have to work within those guidelines, to the same extent as you. Make a friend of the Planning Officer as they really will help, provided you are "On the right lines". There's no point in submitting something so radical that they can not approve it as they simply don't have the authority to agree to it

On that point ... are you looking at the LDP for the areas in which you see suitable plots?

MrsE_2

Its still standing.

TBH from the road (its set well back) it hardly stands out as anything unusual. I think the towers are to the back-sides rather than around the front. As its an easy 100 yards & has other buildings/houses/tall trees about it doesn't stand out like a sore thumb.

Yoshua

Id say it will still be standing for a long time yet.

Mind you, he will never be able to sell it thats for sure.


Maybe one day it will be torn down but they have been saying that for years and will still be saying it in years to come.

Yoshua

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

That size of plot is almost certainly going to be agricultural - either with or without an existing dwelling - or a small stately home

And it could be in a National Park or AONB, further adding to your frustration.

I honestly don't find that environmental building practices are an issue - far from it, most planners are looking for it. But that doesn't necessarily dictate the final appearance/design of the building. With that size plot, the planners' main priority is going to be that the building is appropriate for the locality.

And .... the planners are not giving you their personal view of what is "appropriate" - it will be dictated by the Local Development Plan (LDP) and existing buildings. For example, where I am (High Weald), white weatherboard is the norm or Kent Peg Tiles fixed to the upper elevation.

You cannot change the Planners' requirements - they don't dictate them; the Planning Laws and LDP do that. The Planners have to work within those guidelines, to the same extent as you. Make a friend of the Planning Officer as they really will help, provided you are "On the right lines". There's no point in submitting something so radical that they can not approve it as they simply don't have the authority to agree to it

On that point ... are you looking at the LDP for the areas in which you see suitable plots?

Something like this?

Just go ahead and do it, dont need to tell anyone these days as Mr Fidler has proved.




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

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

--

MX5huggy

The difference is that Malator was built with planning permission on a site that already had a buiding on it.

lostinrates

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

That size of plot is almost certainly going to be agricultural - either with or without an existing dwelling - or a small stately home

That would be because we want to pursue agriculture :D And other land based rural industry. (Its my background )

There have been quite a few new farm houses locally and IMHO they look wrong. One inparticular looks as if lifted up from a 'Exclusive developement of luxry exective homes' and plonked down. I'm glad for the people they got what they wanted, honestly I am, but the arguments about 'in keeping' just can't have applied here.

I do understand the restrictions planners work under, and that it must be a very heated job sometimes, and the one enthusiastic guy we spoke to was just fabulous. Its not that we expect our ideas to be excluded from normal controls//restrictions, far from it, but just it seems that some people...from the second they answer the phone, seem ready to disagree, I feel like if I say 'nice day isn't it' to some of them they'll reply 'Not if you are submitting a planning application'! Again, I understand this is probably developed from years of people phoning up to complain about being turned down on something, but ....I really WANT to work well within the system and I just don't feel the need for anger before we've started

Sinmilarly I'm looking at something over budget at the moment that already has planning for a replacment home, but essentially its replacing a fairly standard big house with a fairly standard bigger house. By standard I mean it could be anywhere in the country, not particularly ugly or beautiful, and certainly not 'architrecturally linked to the area' in which it is built. To me it would seem an ideal oppertunity to replace with something either more inkeeping with the locality or alternatively very different/modern (also not my plan) because there is no issue with in keeping from either the existing or planned replacement; and at this oppertunity it seems sensible to look at something more environmentally 'friendly' and less impactful. To replace bog standard with bigger-bog standard seems, for me, a little....banal I suppose.

Yoshua, not like that no, but I do like it. I'm interested to a degree in subterranean buildings, interested rather than pursuing. I've often thought they'd make great holiday homes and rental homes too.

planning_officer

Yoshua wrote: »

Id say it will still be standing for a long time yet.

Mind you, he will never be able to sell it thats for sure.


Maybe one day it will be torn down but they have been saying that for years and will still be saying it in years to come.

No we haven't been 'saying that for years'!! The Inquiry that decided it's fate was only last year!! There's no requirement for him to demolish it until May this year. And it will then come down!

planning_officer

Yoshua wrote: »

Just go ahead and do it, dont need to tell anyone these days as Mr Fidler has proved.

Where do you get this rubbish from? Do you not understand that Mr Fidler lost his enforcement appeals and will be forced to demolish it? It's pointless just saying 'it's still standing' - of course it is, he doesn't have to demolish it yet! His deadline is 7 May 2009.

Yoshua

planning_officer wrote: »

Where do you get this rubbish from? Do you not understand that Mr Fidler lost his enforcement appeals and will be forced to demolish it? It's pointless just saying 'it's still standing' - of course it is, he doesn't have to demolish it yet! His deadline is 7 May 2009.

We will see what happens 7th May. My money is on it will be delayed again.

Actualy this time last yr they were sayinghe has to demolish it, he always seems to get out of it one way or another.