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

Grade_A_Reject

On a similar vein.....

http://www.off-grid.net/2008/11/12/brainless-council-bans-eco-house/

Land of the free my ar5e.

Debt_Free_Chick

As I understand it, this plot is agricultural not "green belt".

There's a difference.

lovemycats

Hello

Can anyone enlighten me to the old law or statute that he thought would allow him to do this? Thanks.

cats

Debt_Free_Chick

lovemycats wrote: »

Hello

Can anyone enlighten me to the old law or statute that he thought would allow him to do this? Thanks.

cats

He thought that he could undertake development and keep it hidden for four years (or we think that was his plan). Under the Town & Country Planning Act, the local planning authority (Council, usually) cannot take action against unauthorised development (i.e. development undertaken without planning permission) once four years has passed. See section 172.4, final sentence here

However ... my understanding is that this is an agricultural plot of land. So Planning Permission is an issue but, more importantly, building a dwelling actually converts the land from agricultural to residential. That's a change of use (the purpose for which the land was intended is changed) and not covered by the "four year rule" which applies to development undertaken without planning permission, referred to above.

To be honest - looking at the Appeal and the decision of the Planning Inspectorate - there are a whole host of issues with the development of this site and a number of different appeals have been made. However, I understand that the issue is one of unathorised use i.e. using a plot of agricultural land for residential use.

lovemycats

DFC

Thank you so much for such a complete explanation. I'm sure others appreciate it, too.

Really, thanks for your time - it is very much appreciated.

cats

Debt_Free_Chick

lovemycats wrote: »

DFC

Thank you so much for such a complete explanation. I'm sure others appreciate it, too.

Really, thanks for your time - it is very much appreciated.

cats

That's really very kind of you to go to the trouble of saying so - thank you :T

I am, however, second-guessing in this case, which is incredibly complex - but I'm pretty sure that he was banking on using the four-year rule.

Incidentally, the "rule" for change of use is that the change must have occurred ten years ago (not four) so I think he took the bales down too soon! :eek: and in doing so, he "advertised" his misdemeanour

To be honest, his appeal was made up of ten (or more!) different issues so it's difficult to be sure what he thought he would get away with - and why!

Cheers

RLH33

ooohhh there must be a few planners on here!!

DFC is right, if you substantially complete a building and it isn't enforced against by the Council within four years then it is considered unenforceable. You don't have planning permission but equally you can't be required to remove it. As this is a residential use then the use is also covered by the four year rule.

However if the building were to be used for business use then whilst the building may not be enforceable, the use will be as the use has to be in existence for 10 years without being enforced against by the Council whereby the use also becomes unenforceable.

I thought that Mr Fidler was going to the High Court on this one though? Has he given up on this?

Mr Fidler sounds like a right idiot and has obviously been giving the Council trouble over a lot of different things. They will certainly be keeping a close eye on him from now on I'll bet!!

Debt_Free_Chick

RLH33 wrote: »

ooohhh there must be a few planners on here!!

Merely a humble ex-Parish Council Clerk in my case, so I only have a simple grasp of the basic principles

But I live in a rural area and these issues are all too frequent, so I had a good grounding as the Clerk.

Mr F does seem to have been misguided or ill-advised .... but seems to have the money to exploit the legal system!!!

Palm_Centro

Having lived in a part of Devon where development was highly restricted it is clear that it is worth a gamble building without PP.

Grade_A_Reject

Should have hidden it behind some of these instead of hay bales.



Nice.