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

wannahouse

TomHardy wrote: »

Is it still there? So is it now confirmed he has got away with it?

i hope he has!
i think its an awesome property- good on him!

TomHardy_2

Back in 2008 looking at this thread it was the same story some saying he has got away with it and some saying no he hasnt it will have to be knocked down.

Now in 2013 its the same story.

I would guess in a few more years it will be exactly the same some will be saying so has he got away with it, and others will be saying no he hasnt it will have to be knocked down.

All the time, he is laughing because he has got away with it.

It is a good thing all round, there are loads of dwellings being built on private land quietly and after 4yrs they claim lawful development. But these do not get counted in the new homes being added to the supply.

The more property added to the supply the better. The UK still has over 95% of land mass undeveloped. Comparing with Japan, they have around the same amount of land and over twice the population. So we could increase our population by double and still not have a shortage of land.

Patr100

TomHardy wrote: »

So is it now confirmed he has got away with it?

No.





........

John_Pierpoint

TomHardy wrote: »

Back in 2008 looking at this thread it was the same story some saying he has got away with it and some saying no he hasnt it will have to be knocked down.

Now in 2013 its the same story.

I would guess in a few more years it will be exactly the same some will be saying so has he got away with it, and others will be saying no he hasnt it will have to be knocked down.

All the time, he is laughing because he has got away with it.

It is a good thing all round, there are loads of dwellings being built on private land quietly and after 4yrs they claim lawful development. But these do not get counted in the new homes being added to the supply.

The more property added to the supply the better. The UK still has over 95% of land mass undeveloped. Comparing with Japan, they have around the same amount of land and over twice the population. So we could increase our population by double and still not have a shortage of land.

Ah Japan the land of "workaholics living in rabbit hutches" or China the land where 30 sq meters is a family home on the umpteenth floor.

The-Joker

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Ah Japan the land of "workaholics living in rabbit hutches" or China the land where 30 sq meters is a family home on the umpteenth floor.

Yes it is not like that here yet.

But if a few big developers started throwing up huge skyscrapers full of thousands of tiny flats all around the country then there would be excess supply for cheap housing and not much demand.

adouglasmhor

The-Joker wrote: »

Yes it is not like that here yet.

But if a few big developers started throwing up huge skyscrapers full of thousands of tiny flats all around the country then there would be excess supply for cheap housing and not much demand.

In Glasgow they are knocking down flats in multi storey blocks by the thousand. No one wants most of them.

N1AK

Definitely doesn't look like "he's gotten away from it from where I am standing". The house is still standing and he's still trying to appeal but he's incurred significant cost, repeatedly had costs awarded against him and will incur considerably more costs if he continues and doesn't win. By the time this is over and the place is knocked down the cost of building the place will look like pocket change next to the legal costs he'll have paid.

Cracks me up that there are people on that facebook page supporting the house, and moaning about government meddling, while at the same time complaining about travellers building without permission near them. The hypocrisy seems completely lost on them.

John_Pierpoint

The-Joker wrote: »

Yes it is not like that here yet.

But if a few big developers started throwing up huge skyscrapers full of thousands of tiny flats all around the country then there would be excess supply for cheap housing and not much demand.

Horrible multi story flats are NOT a cheap option.
The cheapest sort of building is probably 4 stories comprising 2 maisonettes, or perhaps a "Campanile" motel that comes on the back of a lorry.

Overcrowding in cities produces sky high land values and so result in sky high flats to match.

The tenants then pay sky high rents to cover the lifts and redecoration etc etc.

Marvin2000

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Horrible multi story flats are NOT a cheap option.
The cheapest sort of building is probably 4 stories comprising 2 maisonettes, or perhaps a "Campanile" motel that comes on the back of a lorry.

Overcrowding in cities produces sky high land values and so result in sky high flats to match.

The tenants then pay sky high rents to cover the lifts and redecoration etc etc.

The cheapest option per flat is as large as possible. Some of these places in the far East have literally 4000 flats in one development and does not take up much ground at all because they are so high up. Then they have several side by side, that is a lot of homes in not much land. They even have the car parks over multistorey.

Any way,- Is it still there has he got away with it?

sabretoothtigger

N1AK wrote: »

while at the same time complaining about travellers building without permission near them. The hypocrisy seems completely lost on them.

not if the travellers own their own land. They also might be the clever ones if they can just move when they lose a case, this guy is stuck with it.
I guess though he will just go bankrupt, give up trying and go live in a place the council deems acceptable to themselves