An Englishmans house is his castle.......

[Starfighter]

The local authority could slap on a compulsory purchase order and agricultural rates for the land and then grant the permission and sell on the property on the open market. that should cover the legal costs etc.

[Crush]

tumble dryer said:

Crush said:

Should give him another five years while the council reviews how to cross a moat. Followed by a further ten years during which the demolition crew receive necessary water safety certificates (will probably be a degree level qualification by then, so add another three years).

I'm guessing you're not in your twenties.

Such perfect cynicism is generally age-gathered..

Just left my twenties

[tumble dryer]

Crush said:

tumble dryer said:

Crush said:

Should give him another five years while the council reviews how to cross a moat. Followed by a further ten years during which the demolition crew receive necessary water safety certificates (will probably be a degree level qualification by then, so add another three years).

I'm guessing you're not in your twenties.

Such perfect cynicism is generally age-gathered..

Just left my twenties

The Force is strong...

[SpeckledJim]

It's a waste to knock it down, but he can't be seen to win.

It should be conquered and sold for make benefit glorious nation of U&K.

[Ian Geary]

Starfighter said:

The local authority could slap on a compulsory purchase order and agricultural rates for the land and then grant the permission and sell on the property on the open market. that should cover the legal costs etc.

The Council would need a reason to issue a CPO though...


I used to live around the corner from this chap (and work at the Council btw) - I once looked up the number of applications and notices he had on his land - it was in the double figures(this is from the public website)

There were enforcement notices for things like running a quad off-roading circuit with no permission, something about using a lake for watersports commercially, as well as various applications and appeals on a variety of farm housing.

It's nice to frame this as "the small guy" vs the Town Hall bullies, but the guy knows planning law, he knew he had a farm when what he wanted was a residential property, and was out to game the system.


I do agree the current green belt cannot last forever. In fact, I think it's completely over-romanticised by the South East. I go out looking for places to cycle with my kids, and I think I'm in the "green belt": wow, there must be loads of places to cycle.

But once you're off the dual carriage way A roads, it's just a variety of corrugated iron farm gates, barbed wire, bales covered in tyres and rusting farm machinery. It's not like the Yorkshire Moors, or the right to roam wilderness of Scotland.

I don't like the new built rabbit hutches that are springin up between towns, but I doubt self-owner developers would have the capicity or ability to deliver the scale of housing now required in the South East.

Ian

[Talksteer]

MysteryLemon said:

Grumfutock said:

Why should he be allowed to blatantly breach the rules we all live by?

I dunno... I agree the outcome of the case is obvious and he knew full well all along that there would be no other outcome and set out to cheat the system from the off...

But, think of the amazing country houses and buildings we have around this country. None of them would be built these days. Some local rambler would complain it would spoil his view when walking that route once a year and it would be turned down. I do think the whole system is a bit of a joke. Why can't this bloke build a house for himself on the land he ownes? It's not like hes building huge housing estate and creating a blot on some beautiful scenary. It's a well thought out house that fits the scene perfectly.

I understand its more complicated than this and that if anyone could build anything anywhere, it would get a bit silly, but sometimes I do think the way the planning system works is all a bit st.

Actually architectural excellence is a factor which can be weighed to allow the construction of a large country house in areas where development wouldn't normally be allowed. This is specifically to allow the creation of new national treasures.

[powerstroke]

Talksteer said:

Actually architectural excellence is a factor which can be weighed to allow the construction of a large country house in areas where development wouldn't normally be allowed. This is specifically to allow the creation of new national treasures.

Money talks again!!!!!! so if you find a bit of scrubby land in a back lane and want to build a modest family home you have little chance , but some nice field with a view over the downs and you have serious brass you could build a castle ????

Edited by powerstroke on Monday 21st December 08:16

[Halb]

From what I've read/watched, it's the clean-up costs on brownfield sites that puts of builders, and why they push for green belt land.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33472405

---

There are some better pics of the bloke's house inn the demolition or not thread.

[AstonZagato]

Talksteer said:

MysteryLemon said:

Grumfutock said:

Why should he be allowed to blatantly breach the rules we all live by?

I dunno... I agree the outcome of the case is obvious and he knew full well all along that there would be no other outcome and set out to cheat the system from the off...

But, think of the amazing country houses and buildings we have around this country. None of them would be built these days. Some local rambler would complain it would spoil his view when walking that route once a year and it would be turned down. I do think the whole system is a bit of a joke. Why can't this bloke build a house for himself on the land he ownes? It's not like hes building huge housing estate and creating a blot on some beautiful scenary. It's a well thought out house that fits the scene perfectly.

I understand its more complicated than this and that if anyone could build anything anywhere, it would get a bit silly, but sometimes I do think the way the planning system works is all a bit st.

Actually architectural excellence is a factor which can be weighed to allow the construction of a large country house in areas where development wouldn't normally be allowed. This is specifically to allow the creation of new national treasures.

Didn't the "architectural excellence" loophole get closed down a few years ago?

[Crush]

Could he play the climate change card? Some ste about the carbon footprint of knocking it down perhaps?

[andy43]

Dig a few holes under the foundations and insert great crested newts.
Sit back and watch the planning department implode.

[Mr_B]

andy43 said:

Dig a few holes under the foundations and insert great crested newts.
Sit back and watch the planning department implode.

He has already tried that. Really, he has.

[BlackLabel]

Mr_B said:

andy43 said:

Dig a few holes under the foundations and insert great crested newts.
Sit back and watch the planning department implode.

He has already tried that. Really, he has.

Yep he's already played the newts and bats card.

[AJS-]

Seems like he's tried every trick in the book.

Anyone know how it works if he refuses to knock it down? He goes to prison for 3 months, will the council forcibly evict his family and contract their own demolition people?

[LarryUSA]

It doesn't really need to be knocked down though, does it? I've seen a few TV programs where they pick an entire house up and move it elsewhere. Perhaps he could even sell it?

[Europa1]

AstonZagato said:

Talksteer said:

MysteryLemon said:

Grumfutock said:

Why should he be allowed to blatantly breach the rules we all live by?

I dunno... I agree the outcome of the case is obvious and he knew full well all along that there would be no other outcome and set out to cheat the system from the off...

But, think of the amazing country houses and buildings we have around this country. None of them would be built these days. Some local rambler would complain it would spoil his view when walking that route once a year and it would be turned down. I do think the whole system is a bit of a joke. Why can't this bloke build a house for himself on the land he ownes? It's not like hes building huge housing estate and creating a blot on some beautiful scenary. It's a well thought out house that fits the scene perfectly.

I understand its more complicated than this and that if anyone could build anything anywhere, it would get a bit silly, but sometimes I do think the way the planning system works is all a bit st.

Actually architectural excellence is a factor which can be weighed to allow the construction of a large country house in areas where development wouldn't normally be allowed. This is specifically to allow the creation of new national treasures.

Didn't the "architectural excellence" loophole get closed down a few years ago?

Surely it wouldn't apply in this case anyway - he built a derivative, Disney-ish, tasteless pastiche.

[Mr_B]

LarryUSA said:

Perhaps he could even sell it?

He has already tried claiming he sold it in an effort to get around the law.

[Halb]

Europa1 said:

Surely it wouldn't apply in this case anyway - he built a derivative, Disney-ish, tasteless pastiche.

It's rather lovely considering the surroundings.

[R8Steve]

Be a real shame to knock that down.

Nice tank in the driveway as well.

[BlackLabel]

LarryUSA said:

It doesn't really need to be knocked down though, does it? I've seen a few TV programs where they pick an entire house up and move it elsewhere. Perhaps he could even sell it?

Not sure if serious.

Is this really possible?