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

Cyril

Davesnave wrote: »

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.............

Don't talk to me about farmers, in my area they've made millions on the back of planning apps for huge houses to house their ' polish agricultural workers' and guess what as soon as the apps approved on the market they go. They have vast swathes of land and couldn't care less about anything other than lining their pockets. This is a real area of contention amongst locals whereby Mr Farmer hives off 10 acres into 2 acre plots, gets development for 7 bed houses and then sells for vast profit. They don't need to be told there is more money in housing than food production, which ultimately loads comes from abroad anyway.

The bottom line is all the romance of food production, resiting animals etc etc counts for nothing when there is money to be made. My land doesn't have an agricultural restriction so wouldn't be lost from farming anyway.

Besides, with the population increasing at such a rate where are we going to put people. The sheer scale of immigration together with net growth means more homes will be needed. I don't know if there is enough brown fill for our needs as a society. If we don't build more where will people live. Genuine question.

adouglasmhor

Cyril wrote: »

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.

Yeah we can import all our food and fill every inch of space with houses, that'll work

Davesnave

Cyril wrote: »

Don't talk to me about farmers, in my area......(anecdote)

The bottom line is all the romance of food production, resiting animals etc etc counts for nothing when there is money to be made.

My land doesn't have an agricultural restriction so wouldn't be lost from farming anyway.

Besides, with the population increasing at such a rate where are we going to put people. The sheer scale of immigration together with net growth means more homes will be needed. I don't know if there is enough brown fill for our needs as a society. If we don't build more where will people live. Genuine question.

No, I won't talk to you about farmers in your (unspecified) area, nor about the' romance' of food production, whatever that is.

My point was that there should be regulation so that land is managed according to its natural ability to work for all of us in different ways. I'm sorry if in our dystopian land these things don't always work the way they should, or the way you think they should, but the sensible reaction to that isn't simply to de-regulate everything.

I note that you have land, so may have a vested interest too. If, bearing in mind all the other places one might build, your bit of land is the best available for much needed new housing, then I'd not be opposing that.

Indeed, I agree that building on green field sites will probably be necessary, and might even be desirable, rather than piecemeal infilling, but equally, I can see that my own site has nothing to recommend it.

If you look at some of the places people have been allowed to build in the past 50 years, such as on flood plains, or old mine workings, it would not be hard to make a case for more regulation rather than less.

leveller2911

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.

Fair post but take ASHFORD in Kent for example, over the last few years they have built literally thousands of new homes and yet theres NOT one new School, Doctors surgery, Pubs or any small shops , but they did build new supermarkets and the road lay-out is appalling.. TBH I don't believe Palnners take account of facilities at all just the bottomline of being able to tick boxes for Government targets..

The bottom line is Money, who can be bought and how much for.I hope the Mock Tudor pile of sh1te is torn down and the sooner the better but if the guy had enough money I'm sure it would stay...

MrsE_2

leveller2911 wrote: »

The bottom line is Money, who can be bought and how much for.I hope the Mock Tudor pile of sh1te is torn down and the sooner the better but if the guy had enough money I'm sure it would stay...

I live nearish to the castle (I drive past it daily to work).

Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

People need homes & I would rather see people allowed to build individual homes on their own land, than Barrett style housing estates.

sabretoothtigger

^^ When done well, I agree with that. Regimented housing is depressing

If you look at some of the places people have been allowed to build in the past 50 years, such as on flood plains, or old mine workings, it would not be hard to make a case for more regulation rather than less.

Thats presuming regulation solves problems

Davesnave

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

^^ When done well, I agree with that. Regimented housing is depressing

Thats presuming regulation solves problems

Unregimented housing can also be depressing too. Look at Egypt: there, if you need more space for the family, you build another storey.

Don't think I'd swap though, especially as my local planners have told me I can do the same here.

And yes, I reckon regulation will prevent flooding problems on many new builds, considering there's flood mapping data freely available now. Won't help those whose houses got there before there was adequate concern about this, regimentation, or whatever you want to call it. Never mind, there's insurance.

patman99

The UK planning law needs a good shake-up.
Where else can you gain the right to build without permission a house as big as you like by simply living on the land in a caravan (or building not originally designed for living in) for 10 years?, or where Planning Permission cannot be enforced if a dwelling is constructed without the council's knowledge and 4 years and 1 day have elapsed.

olias

adouglasmhor wrote: »

plus

One of the best posts I've seen in a forum for a long time!:T

Olias

RDB

MrsE wrote: »

I live nearish to the castle (I drive past it daily to work).

Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

People need homes & I would rather see people allowed to build individual homes on their own land, than Barrett style housing estates.

Can you keep us updated then if one day when driving past you see bulldozers smashing it up!