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

Killerseven

I dont think it will ever be demolished. He seems to win every single time. I know people say he has lost again, but the fact is he is laughing.

People will say and still be saying it will be demolished in 5 to 10 years, just like they were saying several years ago, but it will still be there.

John_Pierpoint

leveller2911 wrote: »

Just to add ,his house does not have building regs approval either and may well be a death trap.Just viewing the house on TV, I could see a number of things that don't comply with Building regs.

By definition anyone living in a house more than 10 years old must be living in a home that does not comply with building regulations.

Assuming we carry on building at this rate,
145,174 new homes registered in 2014.
It will be 2,000 years before we are all living in complying houses.

Woops silly me as the population is rising by 350,000 - 400,000 a year, I doubt we are even keeping pace with household formation.

In my neck of the green belt it seems to be open season on small "pop up" traveller camps. - one has got as got as far as a public inquiry,
I am prepared to take on a sporting bet that it will still be there in 3 years time.
I wonder if a decision will be made this side of the election?
It is "human rights" innit..

AdrianC

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

By definition anyone living in a house more than 10 years old must be living in a home that does not comply with building regulations.

That doesn't apply with current BR, perhaps - but that's irrelevant to a newly developed property, since that has to conform to current BR. If somebody's cut corners on building it, the chances are it wouldn't have conformed to previous BR either.

Assuming we carry on building at this rate,
145,174 new homes registered in 2014.
It will be 2,000 years before we are all living in complying houses.

Well, it won't - since BR will have changed in that time.

It is "human rights" innit..

Step away from the Daily Mail.
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/Eur_Convention/euroconv3.html

marjrie_2

Is this place really still standing ?

Davesnave

marjrie wrote: »

Is this place really still standing ?

Yes, it takes years for due process to grind through all its stages, if all of them are exploited.

But the outcome is usually the same.

No council likes demolishing property, nor do they like using public money to fund the legal process, but less high profile cases than this result in demolitions.

There was one case where a council enforcement officer was killed by an unsuccessful appellant. Can't get more extreme than that! Didn't change the outcome for the property.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-13765736

John_Pierpoint

AdrianC wrote: »

http://www.hrcr.org/docs/Eur_Convention/euroconv3.html

I would like to see a human rights act balanced by a human obligations act, starting with a list of parents obligations to their children.

londonTiger

greenbelt rules are there for very good reason.

they're there to stop towns from expanding endlessly and turn into an urban hellhole like Mumbai, Mexico city etc. London is bad enough as it is with a 10 mile radiaus before you hit the motorway - but imagine if you had to drive 20 miles through local traffic to get out of central london - it would be hell.

Allowing this guy to keep his property would be really bad precendent, it would mean property developers could start building property in greenbelt, hidden behind piles of bale and then reveal them after 4 years to the public.

londonTiger

Davesnave wrote: »

Yes, it takes years for due process to grind through all its stages, if all of them are exploited.

But the outcome is usually the same.

No council likes demolishing property, nor do they like using public money to fund the legal process, but less high profile cases than this result in demolitions.

There was one case where a council enforcement officer was killed by an unsuccessful appellant. Can't get more extreme than that! Didn't change the outcome for the property.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-13765736

holy !!!! that is insane the council officers looked so calm before the shot as well. should have called the firearm police

sabretoothtigger

londonTiger wrote: »

Allowing this guy to keep his property would be really bad precendent, it would mean property developers could start building property in greenbelt, hidden behind piles of bale and then reveal them after 4 years to the public.

No I dont think thats the case as he is a farmer who lives near his herd which is his livelihood. Thats not a precedent for housing estates or speculation by developers.
They already restrict farming of land afaik


Theres some laws in wales that make more sense, you can build on green belt if its a self sufficient house and you can prove your business is entirely local. The reasoning being that its a net positive by reducing unneeded commuting.

It also helps swing some of power back from those who are purely the highest bidders for valid patches of land, which can cause the financial eviction of the original occupants of a village

Davesnave

londonTiger wrote: »

holy !!!! that is insane the council officers looked so calm before the shot as well. should have called the firearm police

That's why this is a case study for training purposes.

Nowadays they would.

When an illegal local resident near me threatened officials & police with petrol and a box of matches recently, there was a stand-off lasting hours.

Eventually, the person was arrested and received a custodial sentence. Their land is being appropriated by the council. It will be sold to pay off debts accrued and the clearance of what was a very untidy site.