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

harryhound

Before WW1 and between the wars, Britain had a free trade policy for food. This meant that the rapidly expanded urban industrial class got cheap food and rioting was minimised.
It also meant that traditional farms with an average size of less than 100 acres in the UK, tended to go bust. The survivors were "dog and stick" farmers surviving on "the smell of a greasy rag".
Agricultural land was so cheap that much of it was "going back" to scrub.
This cheap land was bought by speculators and designated as "building plots" - one of the bright lights in the 1930's was the rapid expansion of suburbs round towns because walking distances were no longer an issue.
The poorest worker could get a push bike, many could afford a motorbike and the middle classes aspired to car ownership. Even those unable to drive could use the new frequent bus service to "railhead" to commute to work.

So the country joined in a European war with enough building land for a population three times larger than it then was. The cheapest development was already under way - this was the building that did not require the builder to contribute to the supply of infrastructure - "Ribbon Development" that threatened to merge one town into another to create a universal Stoke on Trent.

The country came out of WW2 bankrupt on the periphery of a near starving continent of displaced persons.
Fortunately "Uncle Joe" had developed a plan to incorporate as much as possible of this continent into his workers paradise state, with ready prepared puppet governments. This woke up "Uncle Sam" to the threat that instability of Europe's socialist planned economies going communist. The food shortage was relieved with Martial aid.

So there we have it the forces that gave birth to the planning system:
Ribbon development bad, endless suburbia USA style not wanted.
Massive need for new housing.
Bankrupt country unable to afford the luxury of detached, extended infrastructure.
Free trade in food a danger as disruption means starvation.
Farmers needing a protected market and high prices if home produced output was to expand.
Socialist planning enabled compulsory purchase of land at existing use value.
Socialist planning enabled rational zoning of development, preventing the building of a glue factory next to a housing estate plus some democratic control over the future of communities (in theory).

That was then this is now.

What has been the undesirable effects of the planning system, given the above pressures?

What would you do to change the system for the better?

Those crying "total freedom" need to get back to their car stuck in a perpetual traffic jam.

Me, I think I will go and look up the address of the local woman whose builder had built her extension 2 cm too high - now there is an issue that the planning system can understand - the planning committee has already spend an hour debating the enforcement notice but has deferred the decision until 25th of September.
Perhaps she should apply for legal aid.

mynameisdave

the.ciscokid wrote: »

So now you are saying a man cannot try to earn a living without your say so. It's a slippery slope.

No, what I am saying is dont come crying to me if in your glorious fee utopia you never get a moments sleep because you're neighbour has turned his residential dwelling into a public house.

I genuinely cannot work out why people are happy to see the state make a man pull down a house that he built with his own resources for his family. It can only be envy, surely?

He apparently has NO resources. That is why he is getting legal aid. I dislike him cheating the system and would be happy to see the house pulled down as happy as I was to see the model get fined for claiminng primary carer allowance while living 100 miles from the person she was caring for and ccavorting naked on the TV.

I don't agree with the ownership of most of the land in the uk being with a select few people who have inherited this land from their forefathers who gained it with the use of violence by the way, quite the opposite

And this many is a land owner, he could easily have inherited it from a forefather with a dodgy past. He could have inherited from someone who given the land for defending Britain from invading armies. He could have bought it. We don't know.

But this is the planning laws, not classs wars.

Why do you need to threaten people with violence though? Can't you just trust them?

Generally not. If we could trust people you could go out and leave your door unlocked.

sabretoothtigger

This castle is so famous, he should sell it like old london bridge. Would please everyone

crazygaijin

lostinrates wrote: »

I keep coming across conflivting information re caravans. for example I read locally that agricultural/farm workers can live in wooden accomodation built temporarily or on wheels without planning permission on the land they are working. Someone locally claims to have got planning permission originating from their occupation on this basis. But I can find nothing else about this.

Having found a plot and been quite serious (and had lots of help from planning officer and planner with focusing our minds) and abut chose not to go ahead with that so are still looking, but the planning issue, before we've even found a farm, is keeping me awake at nights. Its not sufficient with stock: both from the point of needing to be there to care for them and check them reglarly, and, crucially, be around to be a deterrant to theft of valuable animals/equipment, to ''hope'' you can get permission to be on site: but for most young nrew entrants into farming/agricultural enterprise buying a farm with a home, et alone a nice home, and agricultural buildings etc is prohibitively expensive.

What would happen if someone just put a mobile home on their land and started living in it, then they got found out by the local council?

RDB

Any one familiar with policy 52 low impact development?

http://www.lammas.org.uk/lowimpact/documents/AdoptedLowImpactSPG.pdf

It seems any one can build a house anywhere they like as long as they live off the land and have a low impact?

PasturesNew

RDB wrote: »

Any one familiar with policy 52 low impact development?

http://www.lammas.org.uk/lowimpact/documents/AdoptedLowImpactSPG.pdf

It seems any one can build a house anywhere they like as long as they live off the land and have a low impact?

My twist on living off the land would have to be: Bang up a website and a couple of "Wildlife Webcams" - and live from the proceeds of people visiting the site/webcam to see the occasional bunny

Would that count?

I don't fancy going outside and digging anything .... oh no. Updating Live Bunny Blog's as good as it'd get with me.

roddydogs

Still there?

Davesnave

crazygaijin wrote: »

What would happen if someone just put a mobile home on their land and started living in it, then they got found out by the local council?

It happens, but as to what happens, that depends on who you are and where you are.

In most places, the Parish Council will be on to you pretty quickly and they will inform the planners at the Local Council, who will then attempt to take action. We had one of these 'informal' dwellings reported in our village a few months back, but maybe the owners shouldn't have parked their pink milk float so conspicuously! :rotfl:

On the other hand, if you are in a rural backwater and your family have had the land for some time, maybe nothing will happen. I have certainly seen sheds in Wales where Uncle Arwel spent a few years, or detached annexes/studios, complete with all 'facilities' that, mysteriously, never had planning permission. These can be something of a hindrance when selling, especially if they don't comply with building regs.

I once saw a mobile home, carefully shoehorned under a pole barn, with only the windows at the sides and the woodburner's chimney poking through the roof as a tiny giveaway to anyone searching aerially, or otherwise, for unauthorised dwellings.

sabretoothtigger

RDB wrote: »

Any one familiar with policy 52 low impact development?

http://www.lammas.org.uk/lowimpact/documents/AdoptedLowImpactSPG.pdf

It seems any one can build a house anywhere they like as long as they live off the land and have a low impact?

His best chance is an appeal to the greenies. If he had setup a covert wind farm plus castle I'd bet he'd be home free by now

RDB

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

His best chance is an appeal to the greenies. If he had setup a covert wind farm plus castle I'd bet he'd be home free by now

I dont think a dirty great castle will qualify as low impact.

Does planning inspector know about policy 52 low impact development?

Or anyone else I would like to know more about it, any links?