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

Errata

I hope they've fully fireproofed the straw and wood.

verydeeppockets

Norma_Desmond wrote: »

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.

There you go. Local knowledge with proper facts.
It's in a National Park.
On mummy and daddies land.
Nice try, but no cigar.
/thread

IveSeenTheLight

ILW wrote: »

How can you have settled travellers?

Wherever they may lay their hats..............

Graham_Devon

I guess the overiding issue for me would be this (and it may have been mentioned).

Who is that house harming? Certainly it's not the land owner. So who?

It seems no one overlooks it. It seems it blocks no ones views. It seems is causes no obstruction to anyone or anything around it.

So while I understand that we should all abide by the rules, I don't really understand the rules and why they would stop this or have it knocked down? If they had abided by the rules, they simply wouldn't have been allowed to do it and I don't really understand why.

While we are looking at who is harms, maybe we should also look at who it benefits to have it knocked down and how it benefits them. From my view on it, the only benefit brought is that people get "their way" which has absolutely no effect on their lives.

Graham_Devon

Norma_Desmond wrote: »

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.

Is this really true? The national park bit that is?

Only there are buildings around it. It's next door to the Lammas eco village.

http://lammas.org.uk/

It's hardly unspoilt natural beauty with this one house stuck in the middle, it's surrounded by others, such as this:

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I guess the overiding issue for me would be this (and it may have been mentioned).

Who is that house harming? Certainly it's not the land owner. So who?

It seems no one overlooks it. It seems it blocks no ones views. It seems is causes no obstruction to anyone or anything around it.

So while I understand that we should all abide by the rules, I don't really understand the rules and why they would stop this or have it knocked down? If they had abided by the rules, they simply wouldn't have been allowed to do it and I don't really understand why.

While we are looking at who is harms, maybe we should also look at who it benefits to have it knocked down and how it benefits them. From my view on it, the only benefit brought is that people get "their way" which has absolutely no effect on their lives.

I would say there were a 10s of millions such locations in our national parks where no harm would be done.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would say there were a 10s of millions such locations in our national parks where no harm would be done.

Well, yer, but not many where the person building also owns the land themselves.

robmatic

My folks own some land in a National Park. Clearly I missed a trick by not building a !!!!!! little Hobbit-home not in keeping with the area's heritage.

Itismehonest

National Parks are a law unto themselves.
Even properties which were built with planning permission & in keeping aren't allowed to be rented by local youngsters. I know. I have some that have to be kept as holiday homes or, since we retired, treated as our own second homes for CT reasons even though they can't be sold separately to the main residence. It's madness but that's how it is.
Gives the Council a ready source of easy income, I guess

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well, yer, but not many where the person building also owns the land themselves.

Sorry I didn't realise your support for them was based on them being landowners.

One might note that agricultural land is pretty cheap.