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

eddddy

Ithaca wrote: »

Does it matter if you take intentional steps to conceal the property? I could imagine covering it with tarpaulin for four years and pretending it's a haystack would been seen as cheating, but planting fast-growing bamboo to screen it feels like it should be different.

Looking at the planning authority's solicitor's comments relating to the case mentioned in post #949 , it seems that the key consideration is whether there was "deliberate or positive deception on the owner's part to conceal the building".

The solicitor felt that building in a copse surrounded by existing trees wasn't "deliberate or positive deception".

But planting bamboo specifically to conceal a building sounds like it might be "deliberate or positive deception".



Planning Officers report with Solicitor's comments: http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/CausewayDocList/DocServlet?ref=MO/2011/1449&docid=396265

Davesnave

It's becoming ever harder to hide a house. Thanks to regular aerial photography, changes on the ground are easily spotted at a resolution far higher than you or I will get out of Google or Bing. The powers that be already use this to check things like farm subsidies, so they will know, for example, if a farmer moves a fence a few metres or pulls out a wildlife hedge.

I'd guess that the limitations of this surveillance data arise only through restrictions on the workforce available to scan it, which is where local input comes into the equation. In the country, Parish Councils hear matters of concern first and pass these on to the local authority. There is a fair amount of 'live and let live' where I am, but that may be negated by the actions of boorish or dishonest individuals.

So, I suspect the main reasons why the guy with the wooden house got away with his plan, was that he built some time ago now and offended no one who knew about it. There is no doubt that some people knew and chose to stay quiet..

leveller2911

eddddy wrote: »

Quite possibly.

Here's another guy that did the same as Fidler, just 14 miles away from Fidler's farm - but his house was smaller and surrounded by trees, and nobody reported him for 4 years - so he got away with it...

He justified the illegal building by saying "how hard it is for young families to get on the housing ladder". Welcome to the world millions of other people face but they don't go out of their way to deceive.

The man is as bad as fidler because he did go out to deceive the planners, he didn't notify them of his intention to build it.He never notified the council for council tax so again he knowingly went out to deceive the council. He also built it in a rural spot where he knew he was less likely to be caught.

To me the man is a scumbag who doesn't give a flying fig about the rules that the rest of society abide by but as long as he is ok then stuff the rest of us.

The point is if we allow chancers like this guy to build illegally and get away with it then what sort of message does it send to Society?.

He says he may well have a BBQ to "win over" his neighbours well I wish him well with that one.

Davesnave

leveller2911 wrote: »

The point is if we allow chancers like this guy to build illegally and get away with it then what sort of message does it send to Society?.

He says he may well have a BBQ to "win over" his neighbours well I wish him well with that one.

I agree, his excuses are irrelevant, but the law is drafted in such a way as to allow what he did. Presumably that's deliberate, but as we know, laws can outlive their appropriateness.

If people don't want this sort of thing to happen, then its the laws that should be changed.

AdrianC

Davesnave wrote: »

I agree, his excuses are irrelevant, but the law is drafted in such a way as to allow what he did. Presumably that's deliberate, but as we know, laws can outlive their appropriateness.

If people don't want this sort of thing to happen, then its the laws that should be changed.

So what should the maximum enforcement period be for lack of PP? Indefinite?
Should it just apply to building a house, or to extensions?
How about if you thought something was permitted development?

leveller2911

AdrianC wrote: »

So what should the maximum enforcement period be for lack of PP? Indefinite?
Should it just apply to building a house, or to extensions?
How about if you thought something was permitted development?

I don't see that as a defence when anyone wishing to carry out work such as extensions etc only need to approach their local Planning Dept /Building Control and find out exactly what counts as PD and which type of work needs PP.

We often see Planning Applications for "retrospective" work and I don't believe for one moment that those applicants didn't know that the work they carried out may have required Planning Permission.

I don't think there should be a time limit to catch chancers .....I see it all the time on Grade II Listed Properties where people have extended or replaced doors and windows without permission.

AdrianC

It isn't always that simple. My local authority won't give ANY opinion on PP unless they're paid - and the fee for that is almost as much as an actual application.

Let's say you follow the various online "Is it PD?" checkers - and, in all good faith, you decide it is. But you've not realised that the conservation area your house is in makes a difference. Or you've miscalculated the curtilage. Or you've miscalculated the original floor area. Or the LA have removed PD rights as part of a prior PP application. Or they've made an Article 4 declaration and removed PD for the area.

How long should you be exposed to potential enforcement for that? Indefinitely?

molerat

At least some councils have the balls to get on with it http://www.canterburytimes.co.uk/Canterbury-City-Council-destroys-house-Chislet/story-28979192-detail/story.html

Davesnave

I think many councils 'get on with it' eventually. I know in our village it took ten years before due process had been fully exhausted.

Then, it became known that enforcement would cost IRO £50k, so some villagers took the law into their own hands in a misguided attempt to lessen the burden......

I won't elaborate further, but the land is now in the hands of the council, who will sell it to offset their considerable costs.

AdrianC

molerat wrote: »

At least some councils have the balls to get on with it http://www.canterburytimes.co.uk/Canterbury-City-Council-destroys-house-Chislet/story-28979192-detail/story.html

14 years from first construction to council enforcement...