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

the.ciscokid

adouglasmhor wrote: »

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?

Why shouldn't you?

the.ciscokid

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.

Are we incapable of increasing services based on demand in the new location, and reducing the services in the area the people came from? Or did they just appear out of thin air?

If there were no planning restrictions, towns would have grown "naturally", and services kept up with that expansion. We are where we are because of all the planning nonsense.

the.ciscokid

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?

You only need to go somewhere like France, where in a number of villages (especially in an area I visit frequently) people build there own houses more often than not, because planning is far less restrictive.

This means people have bigger, far superior houses, with great gardens etc. Everyone has a garage, and a drive, so cars aren't abandoned everywhere. It puts the UKs pitiful housing stock to absolute shame, and people have a far better quality of life.

Given the opportunity to build something, the overall quality is incredibly high.

You are sold the "ruin the country" arguement, and you fall for it hook line and sinker. All planning is there for is to keep the poor exactly that, poor, and "protect" the investments of the rich.

Gwhiz

the.ciscokid wrote: »

You only need to go somewhere like France, where in a number of villages (especially in an area I visit frequently) people build there own houses more often than not, because planning is far less restrictive.

This means people have bigger, far superior houses, with great gardens etc. Everyone has a garage, and a drive, so cars aren't abandoned everywhere. It puts the UKs pitiful housing stock to absolute shame, and people have a far better quality of life.

Given the opportunity to build something, the overall quality is incredibly high.

You are sold the "ruin the country" arguement, and you fall for it hook line and sinker. All planning is there for is to keep the poor exactly that, poor, and "protect" the investments of the rich.

I'd trust your average Frenchman far more than your average Englishman to build something of quality and in keeping. The French have a wonderful sense of community that is lacking in many parts of the UK. Here it would be - "I'll build what I f***ing well like"

adouglasmhor

the.ciscokid wrote: »

You only need to go somewhere like France, where in a number of villages (especially in an area I visit frequently) people build there own houses more often than not, because planning is far less restrictive.

This means people have bigger, far superior houses, with great gardens etc. Everyone has a garage, and a driveThat's a lie, massive amounts of France’s population live in tiny flats, what a !!!!!! thinking that would fool anyone, so cars aren't abandoned everywhere. It puts the UKs pitiful housing stock to absolute shame, and people have a far better quality of life. That’ll be why they had massive protests about government cuts recently.

Given the opportunity to build something, the overall quality is incredibly high.

You are sold the "ruin the country" arguement, and you fall for it hook line and sinker. All planning is there for is to keep the poor exactly that, poor, and "protect" the investments of the rich.

France also has more land per capita than us on our little island. You really are a bit naive if you think making things up based on your holiday to a rural area or whatever will work.

harryhound

You still need permission in French villages, but that is available more locally from the Mayor's office.
This is the model that Cameron would like to introduce in England and Wales.

The big developers don't like the idea of "the parish" volunteers having more powers and obviously the highly paid planning industry is worried about "arbitrary decisions by a local group of NIMBY's".
I'm not sure is this is an invitation to corruption, but in France one hears about communities allowing couples with child potential to bend the rules, because the local school needs more pupils to keep it open.
Is that a good or a bad outcome, when someone else, with money, just wants to build a weekend retreat?

harryhound

the.ciscokid wrote: »

Are we incapable of increasing services based on demand in the new location, and reducing the services in the area the people came from? Or did they just appear out of thin air?

If there were no planning restrictions, towns would have grown "naturally", and services kept up with that expansion. We are where we are because of all the planning nonsense.

That is not what happened in the 1930's:
Miles and miles of "ribbon development" and enough proposed green field housing estates for a population three times that of the country, was the result.

In poor "immigrant" areas rural slums with no facilities and roads impassible in winter started to be cobbled together.
Hence the 1947 act.

When the local population has prospered, these "slums" have regenerated themselves, often in the teeth of local authority opposition.

Ultimately the planning controls allow central government to get a handle on how much the country invests in bricks and mortar. If we all build detached bungalows, we have no chance of meeting our CO2 reduction obligations for example.

Silverbull

Any way is the castle still there and if so what are we waiting for this time? Or has he got away with it and that is the end of that?

Cyril

Silverbull wrote: »

Any way is the castle still there and if so what are we waiting for this time? Or has he got away with it and that is the end of that?

I'm sure it'll still be there and the longer its there the less chance of him being told to pull it down IMO.

Councils are making severe cuts and i'm not sure how long they can go on funding legal action for one mans build.

pararct

Cyril wrote: »

I'm sure it'll still be there and the longer its there the less chance of him being told to pull it down IMO.

Councils are making severe cuts and i'm not sure how long they can go on funding legal action for one mans build.

Councils have very deep pockets.......

You do know who funds them don't you?