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

Cyril

I think you're being ridiculous tbh, whoever mentioned heroin and kiddie !!!!!!, the thread is about people building on their own land not about the wider laws of the land.

And as previously said I do think planning laws are outdated.

Gwhiz

Cyril wrote: »

I think you're being ridiculous tbh, whoever mentioned heroin and kiddie !!!!!!, the thread is about people building on their own land not about the wider laws of the land.

And as previously said I do think planning laws are outdated.

Do you really believe people should be allowed to build what they like, where they like just because they own the land?

flimsier

I want to know how one can build a Tudor castle in 2011!

edit: or 2008 or whatever.

harryhound

I think there were three original arguments for the Planning Laws.

1 Ribbon development causing adjacent towns to fuse together,

2. Building detached houses scattered all over the place, is not efficient. It costs the nation a lot to supply each home with its services: roads, electric, gas, phone, etc. and uses up much more countryside. The homes themselves cost more to build and considerably more to heat. Logically we should therefore live in Chinese style flats.

3. Every one wants to give their little box a nice view and in doing so ruin the scenery - just look at the siting of some caravan parks that got established before the planning rules were introduced.

The law of un-intended consequences is that we now have petty fogging rules and regulations and a well paid industry of playing poacher and game keeper.

Cyril

Gwhiz wrote: »

Do you really believe people should be allowed to build what they like, where they like just because they own the land?

If someone wishes to build a home for their family that doesn't impede on the neighbours in any way then yes.

I really don't have time for those who complain complain complain when they live no-where near the proposed development.

Developments we don't like / want are inevitable or we'd grind to a halt. Progress can be painful but people need transport links, homes etc. We all have to live somewhere and if those that have land can build they free up another house for another deserving family.

Cyril

flimsier wrote: »

I want to know how one can build a Tudor castle in 2011!

edit: or 2008 or whatever.

I'm not promoting bad taste though lol. Tudor builds should be left to the tudors. Maybe if this guy built something a little less garish it wouldn't have caused such a stir.

Gwhiz

Cyril wrote: »

If someone wishes to build a home for their family that doesn't impede on the neighbours in any way then yes.

I really don't have time for those who complain complain complain when they live no-where near the proposed development.

Developments we don't like / want are inevitable or we'd grind to a halt. Progress can be painful but people need transport links, homes etc. We all have to live somewhere and if those that have land can build they free up another house for another deserving family.

Whilst I agree that some people just get their backs up at planning applications and that nimby-ism can prevent perfectly decent developments going ahead there is a danger in allowing the owner of a piece of land deciding what impedes and what does not.

Just because you may not live near a development does not mean you may not walk/drive by it every day. It may ruin a wonderful landscape for example.

Planning laws may need amending but they are there for a good reason and I, for one, would not want the sort of developing you suggest.

Cyril

Gwhiz wrote: »

Whilst I agree that some people just get their backs up at planning applications and that nimby-ism can prevent perfectly decent developments going ahead there is a danger in allowing the owner of a piece of land deciding what impedes and what does not.

Just because you may not live near a development does not mean you may not walk/drive by it every day. It may ruin a wonderful landscape for example.

Planning laws may need amending but they are there for a good reason and I, for one, would not want the sort of developing you suggest.

I think like anything there could be restrictions ie a house appropriate to needs not 'Southfork' etc and some developments get permission on the provision of funds for certain council projects so the whole community benefits. Ruining a landscape wouldn't come into it, I think on the back of my councils planning notices it says ' view' is not a reason for objection. They certainly weren't worried about view when it comes to building railways, motorways, airport expansions etc. I think the needs of a family are greater than the needs of some passerbys view tbh. Also I think planners are so inconsistent and not everyone has the same principles applied to their application. Thats what also causes upset.

adouglasmhor

Cyril wrote: »

I think you're being ridiculous tbh, whoever mentioned heroin and kiddie !!!!!!, the thread is about people building on their own land not about the wider laws of the land.

And as previously said I do think planning laws are outdated.

So only some laws matter then?

BTW I was being ridiculous to highlight how ridiculous your opinion is.

Cyril

No you weren't. I think you were just trying to be clever and it backfired.

Well you know what they say, if you haven't anything constructive to add to a thread about land development perhaps you're in the wrong thread.

My opinion differing to yours doesn't matter , people have different views on things all the time its what makes the world go round. I think its called debate isn't it.