Damned Designs ch4

[Moonhawk]

monthefish said:

If he was operating outwith the letter of the law there would have been no need to change it.

There is a very good reason - to deter people from trying the same trick and wasting more of the councils resources and court's time.

[Moonhawk]

stuart313 said:

If it causes no distress to anyone else why should it even need planning in the first place. So what if others are allowed to do the same, if it bothers no one then what's the problem, apart from a bit of jealousy.

Planning permission (and building regs) aren't just about making sure it doesn't bother anyone.

[Centurion07]

stuart313 said:

Can anyone else see the castle to be outraged by it or did they have to watch it on the TV to be suitably distraught.

If it causes no distress to anyone else why should it even need planning in the first place. So what if others are allowed to do the same, if it bothers no one then what's the problem, apart from a bit of jealousy.

Its like that old saying, if a tree falls in the woods.....

My recollection is from when it originally went up rather than the programme itself so I may be wrong but....wasn't the main issue it was built on green belt land and therefore it didn't matter if it was the least offensive building ever; it just shouldn't have been built where it was.

Also, by that logic, if I manage to hide whatever I'm building from you for four years, then you can't object. How would you feel if Tesco built a store right next door to you under those circumstances? My money is on you being a tad underwhelmed in that scenario.

Shuvi McTupya said:

Because we have to learn to do what we are told..

That's what being free is all about, apparently.

Personally I think we have far too many rules and should be allowed more freedom to do normal things like build inoffensive houses to bring up our families in.

So what if it doesn't look exactly the same as the house next door..

Trouble is, what YOU may think is inoffensive, may be the most hideous house ever built in history. The point of having planning laws is that everyone knows where they stand with regards to what they can and can't build. Unless you're one of the fk-everyone-else-I'll do what I want crowd as featured on the programme.

[stuart313]

Moonhawk said:

stuart313 said:

If it causes no distress to anyone else why should it even need planning in the first place. So what if others are allowed to do the same, if it bothers no one then what's the problem, apart from a bit of jealousy.

Planning permission (and building regs) aren't just about making sure it doesn't bother anyone.

I know, it gives minions in the council a sense of power and entitlement too.

[Shuvi McTupya]

Centurion07 said:

Trouble is, what YOU may think is inoffensive, may be the most hideous house ever built in history. The point of having planning laws is that everyone knows where they stand with regards to what they can and can't build. Unless you're one of the fk-everyone-else-I'll do what I want crowd as featured on the programme.

I get that, I really do.

But Lets say I bought some woodland and made a clearing in the middle that nobody could see. Why shouldn't I be allowed to build myself a place to live ?

I should be allowed to live in a tree house if I please.

[Centurion07]

Shuvi McTupya said:

Centurion07 said:

Trouble is, what YOU may think is inoffensive, may be the most hideous house ever built in history. The point of having planning laws is that everyone knows where they stand with regards to what they can and can't build. Unless you're one of the fk-everyone-else-I'll do what I want crowd as featured on the programme.

I get that, I really do.

But Lets say I bought some woodland and made a clearing in the middle that nobody could see. Why shouldn't I be allowed to build myself a place to live ?

I should be allowed to live in a tree house if I please.

You're right, that wouldn't affect anyone, but where do you draw the line? It has to be drawn somewhere and that is where the current planning laws say it's drawn.

GIve 'em an inch, they'll take a mile. Best not to give the inch in the first place.

Plus, although no-one can SEE your place to be offended, if it's on a patch of greenbelt land that isn't supposed to be built on, why should YOU have the right to build on that when no-one else is allowed to?

As I said, the rules are there so we all know where we stand. If you want to negotiate with the council BEFOREHAND, go ahead, but these fkers took the piss, built some ridiculous places & THEN tried to negotiate!

[Laurel Green]

Heads up.

[Fugazi]

That's some conservatory

[marksx]

That's why Powys council declined to interview, because they are still rolling around on the floor laughing!

Where do these loons come from? And pink house woman, its the same colour! It might as well have been blue you thick bint.

The mind boggles.

[Bungleaio]

The conservatory isn't exactly intrusive to the surrounding area, it's just the listed status thats doing it which is a shame seeing as he's poured so much money into the place.

As for the eco mentalist sending the council that song

[anonymous-user]

My dad has not built before so was not aware the property was 50% larger than planning allowed.

Yes of course love!

Do theses people think the planners were born yesterday?

[Laurel Green]

There's certainly some blithering idiots in tonight's show, and as for the pink woman...

As for the conservatory; I expect some nice wooden paneling would be more in keeping. Perhaps the landlord could do a deal with 'enviro man as he's bound to have some spare in the near future.

[Saleen836]

Former property developer builds on farmland and doesn't think he should need planning permission.... ermm

[anonymous-user]

Laurel Green said:

There's certainly some blithering idiots in tonight's show, and as for the pink woman...

Mentalists everywhere. Pink, pink pink you mad woman. Not dayglow fuchsia.

[Alucidnation]

Bugger!

Just watching on +1

[Alucidnation]

Im guessing the shed was a problem because it was attached to the main building?

[Escort3500]

Alucidnation said:

Im guessing the shed was a problem because it was attached to the main building?

It would still require listed building consent if it's within the curtilage of the property (which it appeared to be) but, yes, the fact that it was attached to the building might aggravate the problem.

The recurring theme in this series so far is the fact that most of not all are chancers who knew full well they needed planning permission or other forms of consent but wilfully ignored it, then blame everyone but themselves for their predicament.

[Laurel Green]

Escort3500 said:

The recurring theme in this series so far is the fact that most of not all are chancers who knew full well they needed planning permission or other forms of consent but wilfully ignored it, then blame everyone but themselves for their predicament.

An expensive game to play.

[anonymous-user]

Laurel Green said:

Escort3500 said:

The recurring theme in this series so far is the fact that most of not all are chancers who knew full well they needed planning permission or other forms of consent but wilfully ignored it, then blame everyone but themselves for their predicament.

An expensive game to play.

It would not be much of a program if they had decided to focus on the 'non' chancers. The extremes are what the program makers need.

[The Don of Croy]

garyhun said:

My dad has not built before so was not aware the property was 50% larger than planning allowed.

Yes of course love!

Do theses people think the planners were born yesterday?

He's just a layman - how could he interpret plans or drawings without specialist knowledge?

It's not as if he came from an industry reliant on measuring...

The shed they were building was so devoid of 'design' as to be wilfully unpleasant. Add to that the scale of it and it would have been quite monstrous had it been allowed.