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

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

One might note that agricultural land is pretty cheap.

Please don't twist my words. I never said I supported them. They should have stuck by the rules, however, I am questioning the rules.

What I said was what harm is this causing and what benefit will knocking it down bring.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Please don't twist my words. I never said I supported them. They should have stuck by the rules, however, I am questioning the rules.

What I said was what harm is this causing and what benefit will knocking it down bring.

maybe you know the price of agricultural land in Devon?

lets say 20-30k per acre?

how many people would be happy to buy land in Devon at that sort of price and build a property if the rules were to be ignored because no real harm was being done?

basically the rules are there because if one is allowed the why not 2 or 3 or etc.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

maybe you know the price of agricultural land in Devon?

lets say 20-30k per acre?

how many people would be happy to buy land in Devon at that sort of price and build a property if the rules were to be ignored because no real harm was being done?

basically the rules are there because if one is allowed the why not 2 or 3 or etc.

Yes, this is all perfectly good reasoning.

What I am suggesting here is that in this specific case, I am questioning why the rules wouldn't allow that to be built. It's next to an eco village, therefore perfectly in keeping with it's surroundings!

As I said in my first post, I completely understand the need to follow the rules, I just don't see any reasoning why rules would prevent this place from being built, especially considering the eco village is resides next to.

It appears Pembroke County Council are arguing that the owner is not a worker of the forest. That is their main reasoning for wanting it demolished, which doesn't make much sense.

I'm asking what harm this does, and why planning permission should stop it (or in ths case, demolish it).

I'm not arguing that people should be able to build these wherever they like, but clearly planning would have stopped this.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, this is all perfectly good reasoning.

What I am suggesting here is that in this specific case, I am questioning why the rules wouldn't allow that to be built. It's next to an eco village, therefore perfectly in keeping with it's surroundings!

As I said in my first post, I completely understand the need to follow the rules, I just don't see any reasoning why rules would prevent this place from being built, especially considering the eco village is resides next to.

It appears Pembroke County Council are arguing that the owner is not a worker of the forest. That is their main reasoning for wanting it demolished, which doesn't make much sense.

I'm asking what harm this does, and why planning permission should stop it (or in ths case, demolish it).

I'm not arguing that people should be able to build these wherever they like, but clearly planning would have stopped this.

I don't know what the planning rules are in the area so I can't comment on their merit.
If they are wrong then surely the democratic processes should be used to change them.
If it is indeed in a National Park then it's very difficult because there is no democratic control of a Park but that's another debate.

Errata

It appears Pembroke County Council are arguing that the owner is not a worker of the forest. That is their main reasoning for wanting it demolished, which doesn't make much sense.

Fair enough, and if that objection fails the council will say it's unfit for human habitation or an unsafe building, requiring demolition.

Itismehonest

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It appears Pembroke County Council are arguing that the owner is not a worker of the forest. That is their main reasoning for wanting it demolished, which doesn't make much sense.

That sounds like a Lawful Use thing. Maybe the eco-villlage only exists because the residents work & live off their land? A bit like an Agricultural Occupancy tie?

ChiefGrasscutter

I've seen just about every attempt to justify building "a single property".
Sadly most have nothing to do with the actual proposed property in question which is often carefully proposed to be reasonable to most people but are really 'stalking horses' to establish a principle of some form.

I've seen the agricultural barns which someone tries to gradually change into a lived in property over perhaps 10 years plus and hoping no one will notice....fat chance.

I've seen the endless "all I want is a home for my family and to bring up my kids in this lovely area" whines/pleadings which when the property is eventually built is immediately sold off for a decent profit and they move on to plead the same b**llcks to the next council.

Applications to "improve outbuildings" where the real reason is some attempt to subdivide land so as to create new self contained building plots which can then be sold off as separate entities - all at great profit of course.

I 've seen the attempts to link granting of permission in return for some "promise" to restore some ancient woodland by the applicant....yeah yeah, yeah like anyone believes that promise would ever be fulfilled.....(lying toads).

Then there are the applications which are totally outside the rules and they know it - but whey hey, lets put it in and hope no one notices shall we.........and we can then cite it as precedent when we want to build the 6000 more we'll put next door to it.

Then there are the ones who simply build/extend anyway and hope that the council are so short of cash that the council won't dare take them to court (in case they loose and end up with costs awarded against) and force them to pull it down.

So its never just "this" planning application is it?
It's the precedent it sets that is the problem. Making them pull it down sadly is the only way the law can find to act as a deterrent to those who believe the law does not apply to them.





......after which the dogs of hell are unleased by the developers

Derivative

What 'precedent', exactly, is this?

The precedent that people can actually build homes on perfectly viable land?

That people may be able to set up a home without thousands of pounds of mortgage repayments, year on year, for a good proportion of their lives?

Sounds like a pretty good precedent to me.

CLAPTON

Derivative wrote: »

What 'precedent', exactly, is this?

The precedent that people can actually build homes on perfectly viable land?

That people may be able to set up a home without thousands of pounds of mortgage repayments, year on year, for a good proportion of their lives?

Sounds like a pretty good precedent to me.

well it seems the new coalition planning laws go a long way to implement your ideas of a free for all.

C_Mababejive

ILW wrote: »

Do they own the land?

No they dont. The Crown owns it...