Young couple build beautiful cottage to escape rent slavery and live quietly

Norma_Desmond

UPDATE - 01/08/2013

To anyone who may still be interested, I've just heard that Pembrokeshire council has refused planning permission for this couple's Hobbit house and have told them to pull it down within weeks and restore the site/land.

However said couple have applied for retrospective planning permission now........they won't get it I'm sure.

antrobus

Norma_Desmond wrote: »

UPDATE - 01/08/2013

To anyone who may still be interested, I've just heard that Pembrokeshire council has refused planning permission for this couple's Hobbit house and have told them to pull it down within weeks and restore the site/land.

However said couple have applied for retrospective planning permission now........they won't get it I'm sure.

Confirmation here from the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-23529555

Errata

The phrase "Who lives in a house like that" springs to mind.

cotleigh

Derivative wrote: »

Why is it relevant whether the owner is rich or poor?

We have a limited population and there are plenty of other controls in place to ensure that the entire countryside wouldn't become dotted with homes.

For one, a good amount of people couldn't afford to commute from their countryside escape to work and back. Many people simply wouldn't want to put the effort in. We wouldn't end up with every man, woman and child building a second home.

So what's the huge fuss? Really it seems like there are too many people around, if we actually have to worry about people buying up every bit of land to build on and convert acres of farmland into pointless personal play areas.

What "other controls"? The planning rules are what prevents anyone from simply buying a paddock for a few grand and building a house on it.

Sure, not EVERYONE would do this.

But enough would to utterly change the landscape forever.

And most of the houses built wouldn't be quirky-hippy-hobbit houses, or "Grand Designs" eco-friendly specials, they'd be ranch-style bungalows with show-off electric gates and big driveways for the 4x4s.

Large areas in the south-east would become endless spread-out suburbia.

If the builders of this "hobbit hole" had asked really nicely, and laid it on thick with the low-impact, sustainable-living, eco-friendliness of their idea to the local council, they MIGHT have got permission to build it, others have done this around the country.

They are fools for blatantly building this without any permission - did no-one warn them of what was likely to happen?

shireknight

I quite like the look of it, anyhow why shouldn't people be allowed to build whatever they want on land that they own?

I don't see why there shouldn't be a rule that you can do what you want on your land as long as it's a certain distance (say 300 yards) from all of your boundary's so that there is no way anything you build can affect your neighbours.

jamesd

No harm in them trying to get permission with something like a single owner restriction, demolish after they leave.

CLAPTON

shireknight wrote: »

I quite like the look of it, anyhow why shouldn't people be allowed to build whatever they want on land that they own?

I don't see why there shouldn't be a rule that you can do what you want on your land as long as it's a certain distance (say 300 yards) from all of your boundary's so that there is no way anything you build can affect your neighbours.

so one law for the rich that can afford a large plot and one for the 'normal ordinary people' who can't ...

lostinrates

shireknight wrote: »

I quite like the look of it, anyhow why shouldn't people be allowed to build whatever they want on land that they own?

I don't see why there shouldn't be a rule that you can do what you want on your land as long as it's a certain distance (say 300 yards) from all of your boundary's so that there is no way anything you build can affect your neighbours.

300 yards wouldn't really protect people from my desire to recreate jrr tolkiens two towers on my plot of land. My plot of land happens to be in a valley which can be seen from many, many, many miles around and is featured in many local post cards.

I'm sure my architecture will improve it.

N1AK

shireknight wrote: »

I don't see why there shouldn't be a rule that you can do what you want on your land as long as it's a certain distance (say 300 yards) from all of your boundary's so that there is no way anything you build can affect your neighbours.

Then campaign to change the law rather than defending people who choose to ignore it purely because it suits them.

The value of the land etc all account for the rules in place. Land with building restrictions (for example agricultural land, or land in protected areas) is cheaper than it would otherwise be because of those restrictions. People shouldn't buy land with restrictions on it if they don't want to abide by those restrictions

black_taxi_2

no planning permission--oh dear,light bulb moment now needed