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

AdrianC

mart6 wrote: »

IMO he did not

With all due respect, your opinion is dead wrong.

Why did they change the rules about conceling it afterwards ?
...they moved goal posts afterwards anyway imo.

The only rule that was changed was an explicit addition to prevent anybody else trying that one on and wasting time and money. Apart from that, the bit he forgot was "substantially complete". The ruling - and this has been gone over MANY times in the preceding pages - was that a house that has a temporary structure totally covering it barely inches away from all the windows and doors is not "substantially complete".

Wonder if he will take that to european court i think he would have a good chance of winning

What "European court" would that be? The ECourtHR? He already tried claiming it was a breach of the EConvHR - and it got (rightly) rejected. The nearest the convention gets is...

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

...and there's no way that you can say that grants everybody a right to build whatever they like wherever they like.

mart6

I have not read all pages just seen bits in news ect
What about the final appeal?
He got permission on the grounds of being on site for the animals and running a bis
He had 3 years to prove it was viable ?
The s state over ruled that, that is the part that he should take to the european court.

I did not agree with how he did it, No i do not think everyone should be able to build in the green belt but if they say under certain instances you can, how can the s state just step in overrule it and it not be against some european law?
Do you think if it had been someone who donated to political funds sstate would of over ruled it.
To be honest how can he do that then in next breath allow agricultral buildings to be turned into homes now.
He will prob apply for that on one of his buildings now lol

AdrianC

mart6 wrote: »

What about the final appeal?

The secretary of state WAS the final appeal.

The s state over ruled that, that is the part that he should take to the european court.

It doesn't work like that. You can't just take the UK government to some generalist European court, except in cases of breaches of the European Convention of Human Rights and maybe some very limited others.

roddydogs

Yes, but Pickles is now gone. As to the TV prog, shark man excepted, all 3 were chancers who knew they were trying to bend the law & get away with it. No sympathy at all.

ognum

Sorry for wading into this very late but apart from planning permission it has no building regs so could actually be a very dangerous structure.

Nobbie1967

mart6 wrote: »

To be honest how can he do that then in next breath allow agricultral buildings to be turned into homes now.
He will prob apply for that on one of his buildings now lol

Because to do those things you have to apply for and get planning permission and then carry out the work in accordance with building regulations. Both of which he failed to do when building his house.

mart6

ognum wrote: »

Sorry for wading into this very late but apart from planning permission it has no building regs so could actually be a very dangerous structure.

I agree he also said a lot he learnt as he went along.
I may be corrected again ..lol, but building control can only become involved in the first year ?
As in they can not come along saying they never passed stages of a build.
Once its passed the 4 year rule its out thier hands ?

Sabrina2000

mart6 wrote: »

allow agricultral buildings to be turned into homes now.
He will prob apply for that on one of his buildings now lol

So what is the law now? Can aricultural buildings be turned into residential after 10 years or something?

But they have to have to been used for the last ten years, or something?

Anybody here well versed in the latest planning chnages?

Davesnave

Sabrina2000 wrote: »

So what is the law now? Can aricultural buildings be turned into residential after 10 years or something?

But they have to have to been used for the last ten years, or something?

Anybody here well versed in the latest planning chnages?

These are the basics:
http://www.stephenson.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PD-Rights-Bulletin-250314.pdf

Note that the plans still need approval, and that councils may still be 'reluctant' to give this on the grounds of practicality and desirability, whatever that might mean.

Errata

Davesnave wrote: »

These are the basics:
http://www.stephenson.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PD-Rights-Bulletin-250314.pdf

Note that the plans still need approval, and that councils may still be 'reluctant' to give this on the grounds of practicality and desirability, whatever that might mean.

Probably means reluctance to let every farmer in Cumbria/Dales/ Devon etc turning every single one of their barns into holiday homes.