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

lostinrates

Andy_L wrote: »

To an extent it is. "Ricketyness" would be a consideration in planning permission & building control

Looking rickety isn't considered grievous though, if appropriate. For example, we had to remove the walls of part of our house last summer and the builder propped the roof up, so we could retain the sound but not straight way it sat there. Similarly, when rebuilding the walls they were built without the terrible structural bulge but with a little 'wobble' in the line so as to retain the original character. As well as using reclaimed bricks.

This is both structurally sound, met with the historic building officers approval, and building control are happy.

harryhound

Time to report to the court of human rights
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1373841
Time to spend 7,000,000 of the taxpayer's money:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Farm

angrypirate

harryhound wrote: »

Time to report to the court of human rights
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1373841
Time to spend 7,000,000 of the taxpayer's money:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Farm

Thanks to John Prescott allowing temporary planning order. Only reason he did was because its in a Tory stronghold area. He should never have got involved but couldnt help himself. Had the temporary planning order never been granted, the site would have been got rid of years earlier with much fewer buildings on the site at a much lower cost to the taxpayer

ess0two

N1AK wrote: »

My imagination is just fine unlike your ability to make a compelling case or remotely accurately read the thoughts and motivations of others. But that's hardly surprising as you've shown boundless ineptitude on so many fronts here before.

It doesn't matter what worlds you can imagine in your deficient little brain it is still moronic to do what they did in the real one; something those of us with enough braincells to rub together take as manifestly obvious.

I'd say we could debate whether the current planning regime is good, bad or ugly but you wouldn't know a debate if you got your face improved by being hit about the head with it.

Harsh but extremely true:money:

princeofpounds

I do agree that planning laws need to allow for sensible, small scale independent building.

This. For some bizarre reason independent builds seem to be almost frozen out of the system due to the complexity, restrictions and costs. It means we end up with Barratts and friends sitting on thousands of landbank plots, only to churn up the occasional identikit estate of poorly-built slaveboxes.

Seriously, I'm staggered when I see them get permission to convert zoning of a huge area in the countryside when I've never met a private individual who has got close to achieving such a thing. The government might as well write them a cheque and stuff it in their back pocket because it's where most of their profits come from, not actual building.

In France, Germany and Belgium for instance, building your own home on a plot has a long tradition outside of the city centre areas. Managed properly, you don't end up with LA-style sprawl, you get sturdy, mostly attractive and differentiated houses.

The link below shows you the sort of thing - now I'm not claiming these are the best examples, but it'll give you a sense. These are not 'special' homes although a couple are larger than average.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1157889

In my village in the UK hundreds of nice houses like this were built from the 50s to the 70s. Most of the baby boomers live in them now. But strangely the number built in the last three years on new plots? One.

Doesn't anyone think that's a bit odd? Our planning system has ossified to the point of non-functionality.

Itismehonest

princeofpounds wrote: »

This. For some bizarre reason independent builds seem to be almost frozen out of the system due to the complexity, restrictions and costs. It means we end up with Barratts and friends sitting on thousands of landbank plots, only to churn up the occasional identikit estate of poorly-built slaveboxes.

Seriously, I'm staggered when I see them get permission to convert zoning of a huge area in the countryside when I've never met a private individual who has got close to achieving such a thing. The government might as well write them a cheque and stuff it in their back pocket because it's where most of their profits come from, not actual building.

In France, Germany and Belgium for instance, building your own home on a plot has a long tradition outside of the city centre areas. Managed properly, you don't end up with LA-style sprawl, you get sturdy, mostly attractive and differentiated houses.

The link below shows you the sort of thing - now I'm not claiming these are the best examples, but it'll give you a sense. These are not 'special' homes although a couple are larger than average.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1157889

In my village in the UK hundreds of nice houses like this were built from the 50s to the 70s. Most of the baby boomers live in them now. But strangely the number built in the last three years on new plots? One.

Doesn't anyone think that's a bit odd? Our planning system has ossified to the point of non-functionality.

Ordinary Joe Bloggs can't include the infrastructure like new roads, schools etc. which developers can sugar the pill with. In other words, we can't provide the facilities which local authorities want but don't want to pay for.
There's also a great deal of Nimbyism. Same old story. Everyone wants a permanent view but doesn't want to pay for the privilege.

verydeeppockets

ruggedtoast wrote: »

How dare they try and not pay thousands of pounds year to some dreadful spiv with a buy to let mortgage or some ghastly bank run by David Cameron's mates?

How dare they not spend two thirds of their life slaving in a call centre just to make ends meet?

Never mind that 1% of the population of this egalitarian country owns 70% of the land.

http://www.progress.org/revwob.htm

God forbid any of the privileged elite should have to suffer, better keep crushing the dreams of the young.

Without building control approval, it might not be just dreams that are crushed.
They also have no planning permission.
If they are daft enough to build a house without any paperwork, plans, approvals or calculations that doesn't bode well for the quality of construction.
If you feel strongly that PP and BRegs should be abolished, so people can build what they like where they like how they like, write to your MP and see how far you get. That's the system, and we're stuck with it. A system. Because without a system, we have anarchy. And wonky unsafe roofs.

Still, at least we're not communists - with damn hard work, years of effort, and a bit of luck, we too can aspire to become landowners and sculptors, just like the people who've built this shed on their inherited acres

Mr._Pricklepants

Call in the JCB's.

We can't have each and every self-righteous twit digging rabbit holes all over our green and pleasant land. :money:

wymondham

I think the problem here is that it looks unique, interesting and looks like a fun place to live. If it was a square brick built shoebox then nobody would have noticed!

CLAPTON

wymondham wrote: »

I think the problem here is that it looks unique, interesting and looks like a fun place to live. If it was a square brick built shoebox then nobody would have noticed!

really
so where do you live that you can build a boring property without planning permission or building approval?