Living on own land

Davesnave

lincroft1710 wrote: »

I think it's in Essex - Jaywick

You got there first!

It's a very good case study in what happens when Joe Public is allowed a freer rein with his building ideas.

moneyistooshorttomention

Ahem....ahem....:rotfl:and Jane Public with her building ideas....

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Ahem....ahem....:rotfl:and Jane Public with her building ideas....

Nah, in the days I'm speaking of, just after the War, she was still oscillating between the kitchen sink and the dinner in the oven, waiting for her pipe-smoking husband's return from the office.

patman99

I think the rules are that if you live on a piece of land in something not originally designed for accommodation purposes, then after 10 years, you earn the right to construct a dwelling without seeking planning permission.

Trailers do not require PP, so you could emulate Kevin McCloud and build a fully-functional living shack on a trailer and site it on your land.

Just think of the sort of dwelling you could construct on a 30ft farm trailer, especcially if you made the sides and ends so they could slide out.

moneyistooshorttomention

Davesnave wrote: »

Nah, in the days I'm speaking of, just after the War, she was still oscillating between the kitchen sink and the dinner in the oven, waiting for her pipe-smoking husband's return from the office.

Now I know you've had a drink - or three - and are being wicked Dave:cool::rotfl:

Welcome to the 21st century - where I am watching, with astonishment - and huge admiration and envy - the youngest generation just swatting the last traces of sexism casually to one side. Cue for noticeable amount of own vocabulary thrown out into the history books and changed to gender neutral.....

I must confess I hadnt realised just how much of it there is still around - until the youngest generation (and BBC presenters etc) "pointed it out to us" and I was horrified to realise = they're right:eek:

Davesnave

If people were able to buy any plot of land and build on it, or develop without any regulation on land they already own, then it's obvious to most of us that not only would a considerable degree of chaos ensue, but also, without planned/shared services, there would be inefficiency and waste on a massive scale. We would lose visual amenity and wildlife would suffer too.

People don't like being told what to do, but they like it less when their neighbours can do as they wish!

Here in rural Devon, we have enough land to build at least 50 houses at medium density, but we know that as things stand, we can't build one. That's as it should be, because our land is part of the visual amenity of this area, it produces food and it isn't a very sensible place to put more houses when the local sewerage system is a mile away and the road is narrow. Yes, there are ways around all that, but it's better not to use up resources overcoming problems that could be avoided in the first place.

Instead, the local council has identified two fields where development would best take place within the village boundary, while a seperate committee has been formed to identify potential land for low-cost housing. These are democratic processes which anyone here could involve themselves with if they wish and they are mirrored all over the country.

I dare say the system isn't perfect, but it's much better than a free-for-all.

Doozergirl

bertiewhite wrote: »

But his daughter did. I can't remember the exact story but so what if someone wants to live in a garage without complying with building regs? Surely it's only them that's affected by it.

How about someone living in a summerhouse at the end of the garden? What harm is it doing?

You neglect to realise that there would be (and there already are) many people ready to take advantage and rent shacks to tenants.

I don't think demanding basic living standards for all is an example of a nanny state. It's being collectively responsible.

If someone wants to have a well insultated shed with appropriate provisions for habitation next to their own house, they are able to within some limits.

Davesnave

Doozergirl wrote: »

If someone wants to have a well insultated shed with appropriate provisions for habitation next to their own house, they are able to within some limits.

Especially in the county that Bertie hails from, and the one next door. I've seen a couple of them. Quite pleasant views, but rather odd, putting a mobile home inside a pole barn! :rotfl:

keith969

Davesnave wrote: »

Here in rural Devon, we have enough land to build at least 50 houses at medium density, but we know that as things stand, we can't build one. That's as it should be, because our land is part of the visual amenity of this area, it produces food and it isn't a very sensible place to put more houses when the local sewerage system is a mile away and the road is narrow..

Funny that, that's exactly what's happened to a sheep field close to me where a developer is now building 61 houses. Developers can do what they like, it seems, while individuals cannot.

AdrianC

keith969 wrote: »

Funny that, that's exactly what's happened to a sheep field close to me where a developer is now building 61 houses. Developers can do what they like, it seems, while individuals cannot.

I bet that the developer went through the exact same planning permission process as anybody else would have to...

Have a look on your local council's planning website - the entire history is available to view.