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

[Deleted User]

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Let them build I say.

Just as well you're not in charge then!

WR

Norma_Desmond

I live just a few miles away; local people are pretty angry with this couple mainly because they have built the house with no planning permission slap in the middle of a National Park.

They're neither gypsies or travellers - Mummy and Daddy own the land and the pair were misguided enough to think they could 'get away with it' because the house looks cute (yeah, right) and ticks some eco-friendly boxes.

We all have to abide by planning rules.

dealer_wins

ruggedtoast wrote: »

One of the first things the Coalition government did when they took power was outlaw so called garden grabbing so. Since then how many houses have been built? How many affordable houses have been built?

There is plenty of land in England and there are plenty of people who need a house, and not some overpriced Barratt box build financed by George Osborne's dodgy government loan.

Let them build I say.

They can build their own house, just that it needs to meet planning permission.

Derivative

This thread is utterly hilarious.

'They can build their own house - they just need planning permission'.

Do people actually think before they type?

That's like saying 'you can drink cyanide, you just need to become immune to its' effects first'.

They can't get planning permission. Ever. It is, barring some sort of absolute miracle, impossible for them to get the planning permission to build a house on land that _they own_.

Hence, they _cannot_ build a house.

If you're not happy with people building their own homes, just say it. Planning permission is a silly abstraction. It is what means that people cannot build their own homes.

I'm not too fussed either way, but really, say what you mean.

If a course of driving lessons was proposed that would increase the time required to pass the test to 5 years, then the effect would be that it would become almost impossible for people to obtain their licences. It simply wouldn't be worth it unless you were a taxi driver. It means that in effect people are banned from driving. It's silly to claim that purely because something is theoretically possible under ideal circumstances, that everything is totally fine.

System

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!

Exactly. Wales with its famous indigenous heritage, a wealth of local natural building materials, and a long tradition of self-built rural cottages, is filling the landscape with English-designed breezeblock bungalows looking like public lavatories.

I'd judge the matter purely by results. That eco-building is nice and the couple are hard working. Therefore if I were in charge I would over-ride the rules and give it permission.
And when someone wants to put up another boring concrete retirement bungalow in a beauty spot I would over-ride the rules and veto it.

Planners have no imagination or initiative, and their main function seems to be to find out what people are doing and stop them.

GhIFA

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Exactly. Wales with its famous indigenous heritage, a wealth of local natural building materials, and a long tradition of self-built rural cottages, is filling the landscape with English-designed breezeblock bungalows looking like public lavatories.

I'd judge the matter purely by results. That eco-building is nice and the couple are hard working. Therefore if I were in charge I would over-ride the rules and give it permission.
And when someone wants to put up another boring concrete retirement bungalow in a beauty spot I would over-ride the rules and veto it.

Planners have no imagination or initiative, and their main function seems to be to find out what people are doing and stop them.

Really???
And what if the people who wanted to put up the "boring concrete retirement bungalow" had also been hard-working - how would that fit into your scheme?

What if the "nice" eco-building was built with inherited wealth and not by people who were "hard-working"?

No, planners are looking to see if the regulations are being adhered to - it may not be a perfect system, but I would venture to suggest it works better than your proposed subjective one of only allowing buildings that look nice, and are built by people you consider "worthy".

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Hang, is it really in a National Park? There are strict planning rules there for very good reasons.

chucknorris

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Yes, you would say that, because you can imagine no other world other than the one you live in.

A world where the majority have nothing and the minority have nearly everything.

A world where the poor have their pockets picked by the rich.

A world where faceless grey bureaucrats crush harmless little houses with bulldozers and rubber stamp grim rabbit hutch developments for the working poor to spend their misery sodden lives in.

A world where you, my friend, are part of the problem.

Greetings! I too live on that world, we call it Earth, what is the name of your planet?

CLAPTON

so one buys cheap agricultural land for peanuts

builds a nice house

then worth a lot of money

but of course nice young hard working people with landowners as parents won't do that

System

GhIFA wrote: »

Really???
And what if the people who wanted to put up the "boring concrete retirement bungalow" had also been hard-working - how would that fit into your scheme?
.

Yes, really!

As I said, I'd judge each one on its merits.

Tell me the merits of putting up your concrete bungalow and I'll tell you whether I'd allow it or not.