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

adouglasmhor

Cyril wrote: »

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.

Oh well, I see you are a mind reader as well as a smartâss.

Landowner is refused planning permission, fully aware of this he builds a house anyway behind a screen of straw bales, he got caught, end of story.

People having different views isn't necessarily debate, if they post tripe like you did it's just an invitation to mocking.

Cyril

You've just been out debated thats all and are resorting to attack instead of putting across a decent argument as to why i'm talking such ' tripe' in your words.

Come on then tell me why its so wrong that people should want to build a home on their own land. I'm not saying this guy was clever, far from it and what he built was garish but I still believe there's nothing wrong with wanting to better your families circumstances.

adouglasmhor

The land was not scheduled for the building in question. By your "logic" it would be ok for me to build a block of flats where my house stands now? Or open a burger restaurant in it, it's mine?
He knew he was breaking the law, he tried to hide it form the authorities, he was stupid.

It's not wrong to want to build a home on your own land, but there are procedures in place. He chose to not follow them instead trying some half baked scheme based on a half understood loophole in the planning laws. It was agricultural land not residential.

Out debated - I think not, you haven't put forwward one rational argument or fact to back up your views.

HappyMJ

hmmmm.. Agricultural land £4,000 per acre. Residential land £250,000 per acre. Wouldn't it be great to buy that farm at the north end of the village near me build a huge house on it and it's still only a 5 minute walk to the village pub next to a piece of expensive land for sale. It's not allowed it shouldn't be allowed. Developments should be planned not built in a haphazard way. What about schools? Shops, Roads, Healthcare facilities all these are considered when a new development is proposed all of which would be vastly overwhelmed if further unplanned development occured on the edge of my local village.

Cyril

I haven't said anything about blocks of flats or burger bars, i've said a family home. Read my posts.

Yes I agree this guy was stupid because as things currently stand he legally can't build however my whole debate is that with restrictions I think people should be able to build a family home.

I for one don't want my kids to live in some skanky highrise or somewhere where if you grow a rosebush half the garden is gone. If the chance comes to build I will be doing so.

Cyril

HappyMJ wrote: »

hmmmm.. Agricultural land £4,000 per acre. Residential land £250,000 per acre. Wouldn't it be great to buy that farm at the north end of the village near me build a huge house on it and it's still only a 5 minute walk to the village pub next to a piece of expensive land for sale. It's not allowed it shouldn't be allowed. Developments should be planned not built in a haphazard way. What about schools? Shops, Roads, Healthcare facilities all these are considered when a new development is proposed all of which would be vastly overwhelmed if further unplanned development occured on the edge of my local village.

A very valid point. However planners give due consideration to all the amenities available when considering development and lets be honest not that many people own land, certainly not enough to swamp or overwhelm existing settlements. Besides, developers contribute to amenities for all whether they be new or enhanced on approval of planning apps where increased population is expected.

adouglasmhor

But the guy who built the house did not contribute to amenities, did not make a successful planning app and built on agricultural land which was classified as such by the planners. You seem to just spout out stuff without thinking it through.
As for not a lot of people owning land, what if he sold of his land in house plot sized parcels and everyone who bought one built on it? Can you not follow a train of thought through to it’s likely conclusion?

adouglasmhor

plus

Davesnave

Cyril wrote: »

A very valid point. However planners give due consideration to all the amenities available when considering development and lets be honest not that many people own land, certainly not enough to swamp or overwhelm existing settlements. Besides, developers contribute to amenities for all whether they be new or enhanced on approval of planning apps where increased population is expected.

Er, I own land. It is quite good quality agricultural land capable of growing good grass or crops. While it would be lovely for my kids to to self-build on this land, many of us think that the matter of food production also comes into this. Once it is built on, the land could not be doing what it's doing now; producing someone's Sunday roast.

Also, there are dormice on the land. Yes, I know, they can go somewhere else, and so can all the other uncommon animals that live there.

Oh, hang on.............

Cyril

adouglasmhor wrote: »

But the guy who built the house did not contribute to amenities, did not make a successful planning app and built on agricultural land which was classified as such by the planners. You seem to just spout out stuff without thinking it through.
As for not a lot of people owning land, what if he sold of his land in house plot sized parcels and everyone who bought one built on it? Can you not follow a train of thought through to it’s likely conclusion?

He built illegally we know that but i'm not just talking about him.If planning rules were relaxed that allowed an application legally then I think that it a good thing.