Sometimes I think 'planning permission' is intended to keep us in boxes :sigh:
- Thread starter Toddy
- Start date
Biker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
What a bureaucratic load of hogwash! On one hand the government says we need to be more green, and when people comply they throw red tape at them. 
Probably because that couple didn't apply for a mortgage and get caught by the short and curlies with a bank ... who the politicians are probably majority share holders of. Independent thinkers like this couple scare the powers that be to their very foundations.
Thanks for sharing Mary, makes my blood boil this sort of thing. Would the couple be targeted if they'd had a shipping container craned in and used that instead? It's more cube like.
Probably because that couple didn't apply for a mortgage and get caught by the short and curlies with a bank ... who the politicians are probably majority share holders of. Independent thinkers like this couple scare the powers that be to their very foundations.
Thanks for sharing Mary, makes my blood boil this sort of thing. Would the couple be targeted if they'd had a shipping container craned in and used that instead? It's more cube like.
Two local people, living in their own lands, where their families belong, and they built something truly beautiful let alone 'green', a real home. A home for theirselves and their son to live in, not to be rented out as an investment, not a blot on the landscape, not a carbuncle of a modern gulag housing scheme (sorry, estate 
) but something uniquely 'right', and some jobsworth declares that it doesn't have rural character.....what a damned shame and a scathing indictment on the soul and spirit of our so called 'society'.
The only hope is that they will gain retrospective permission.
I admit I'm puzzled though; why not just apply in the first case ? Money ? or social comment ?
Mary
) but something uniquely 'right', and some jobsworth declares that it doesn't have rural character.....what a damned shame and a scathing indictment on the soul and spirit of our so called 'society'.The only hope is that they will gain retrospective permission.
I admit I'm puzzled though; why not just apply in the first case ? Money ? or social comment ?
Mary
Biker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Maybe knowing it would be flatly refused form the onset swayed them to go via this route. This way people like us add our opinions making those blinkered bureaucrats appears to be unimaginative jobswoths... which they often are. If I did something like that I would apply after the fact... or simply never let on I built it. But I suppose you have to have an address through official means, not to meniton utilities.
Good luck to them. I'd vote for it to be left alone and more built.
Whilst i sympathise with their plight its amazing that people still do this. Its a pretty little house for sure but we do need a planning framework or ad hoc development would crop up all over the place without any moderating influence.
The fact that its an 'eco house' does not make it any different. I hope they get their appeal but i fear the outcome will be proportional to how much they spent on the planning consultant representing them.
The fact that its an 'eco house' does not make it any different. I hope they get their appeal but i fear the outcome will be proportional to how much they spent on the planning consultant representing them.
Another victory for the tickbox bureaucratic society called Great Britain. The state rules Okay.
:tapedshut
:tapedshut
I agree Mary - people should be able to build whatever they want on their own land without some petty jobsworth telling them what to do - be that residential or commercial, their land, their business. Provided what they do does not impinge on neighbours (smell, noise etc.) its no-ones business but theirs.
They could do away with planning permission but that would not remove the need for building regulations.
If we all did what we wanted it would soon become very chaotic, but as already mentioned if it is not going to cause a problem why not, a nice four storey eco house in a picturesque Black and White village would be very fitting, as those B&Ws were Hi-tech once, weren't they.
A completely off grid house a mile from any infra-structure not wanting or needing external input or output is the way to go.
If we all did what we wanted it would soon become very chaotic, but as already mentioned if it is not going to cause a problem why not, a nice four storey eco house in a picturesque Black and White village would be very fitting, as those B&Ws were Hi-tech once, weren't they.
A completely off grid house a mile from any infra-structure not wanting or needing external input or output is the way to go.
Not quite as open ended as that BR, I have seen some truly atrociously unsafe or intrusive self constructions. Would you like to live next door (even if it is ten acres away) to someone who decided to set up a meal wormery ? .....and I know someone who was furious that his neighbour reported him and complained because he did just that on his own land.....It was more that this kind of thoughtful construction, built with every decent intention, was being declared as not having rural character, and that that was the reason given for the order to destroy it.
I understand the 'greenbelt' issues, and I do understand the reasons for building standards (that said though, some of the buildings that have stood for hundreds of years are so totally out of the ballpark there that modern planning permission just would never be given, yet they're sound, beautiful, and they do belong), but is the home they built not a vast improvement on living in a mobile home/caravan to rear their family in good health ? a place they built and can maintain themselves ?
Ah, we'll see what comes of the retrospective appeal, the whole thing just rankled me somehow; the thought that that beautiful home was to be destroyed and them left with nothing but memories and turmoil.
M
I understand the 'greenbelt' issues, and I do understand the reasons for building standards (that said though, some of the buildings that have stood for hundreds of years are so totally out of the ballpark there that modern planning permission just would never be given, yet they're sound, beautiful, and they do belong), but is the home they built not a vast improvement on living in a mobile home/caravan to rear their family in good health ? a place they built and can maintain themselves ?
Ah, we'll see what comes of the retrospective appeal, the whole thing just rankled me somehow; the thought that that beautiful home was to be destroyed and them left with nothing but memories and turmoil.
M
Thankfully I don't need anybody's permission or approval to build on my own land (at least not the acreage outside city limits)
I have a great amount of time for building control as they make sure our buildings are of a recognised standard. I work within building regs all the time and the blokes that come round to check up on things are OK. Practical people who help out with solutions to problems.
On the other hand I have very little time at all for the Planning lot.
For years they have been systematically ensuring that people without lots of cash cannot get planning permission for new homes or even extensions in the lake district by knocking back the plans time and time again. Come with loads of cash and you can build whatever monstrosity you want.
Personally I feel that some of them could do with a damn good shoeing.
On the other hand I have very little time at all for the Planning lot.
For years they have been systematically ensuring that people without lots of cash cannot get planning permission for new homes or even extensions in the lake district by knocking back the plans time and time again. Come with loads of cash and you can build whatever monstrosity you want.
Personally I feel that some of them could do with a damn good shoeing.
Ahh but therein lies the problem, terms like "intrusive" and "beautiful home" are highly subjective. Once you create a process for seeking approval to build, then that process needs to be followed. These people deliberately chose to flout that process. Equally well, once you make exceptions - well, everyone is an exception.
Being literal that house does not have a "rural character" - its character is unlike almost every rural dwelling I have ever seen or lived in. I like it, don't get me wrong, but it isn't a typical dwelling.
That's why I think people should be able to build what they like (provided that it is safe so, yes, building regs apply - within limits). Once its an aesthetic judgement, its inherently subjective and emotive.
Either way, whilst I have sympathy for the house, the people were pillocks if they didn't see this coming. They could have got the permission first - just as Ben Law did with his equally beautiful home, but they chose not to. Well, you gamble big, you lose big. They knew the rules, they chose to break them. It is a lovely house for sure, but those who say "the rules everyone else has to live by don't apply to me" are going to come unstuck most of the time.
My view is to change the rules - but I can't say "but only when the outcome is to my taste" that would be hypocritical of me.
Biker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Too many people crammed into this small island and this is one consequence.
If they had sought planning permission no doubt they would have had to comply with building regs and aesthetic stipulations, the cost would have gone through the roof and the materials available would have been unsuitable to build what was required of them.
If they had sought planning permission no doubt they would have had to comply with building regs and aesthetic stipulations, the cost would have gone through the roof and the materials available would have been unsuitable to build what was required of them.
Last edited:
It's a lovely wee house.
Having read the article through, the issue doesn't seem to be the design of the house though, it's the building of residential accomodation in open countryside or agricultural land when it is not required for the working of the land ie agricultural tenancy.
The planning concern would likely be that if permitted then anybody else in the area with similar agricultural land or open countryside could build on it or sell it for development.
So less about the house, which is wonderful looking, and more about the principle of developing anything residential in that location I think.
Cheers, Paul
Having read the article through, the issue doesn't seem to be the design of the house though, it's the building of residential accomodation in open countryside or agricultural land when it is not required for the working of the land ie agricultural tenancy.
The planning concern would likely be that if permitted then anybody else in the area with similar agricultural land or open countryside could build on it or sell it for development.
So less about the house, which is wonderful looking, and more about the principle of developing anything residential in that location I think.
Cheers, Paul
I agree with the principal of building regulations, but only as far as to make sure that the building is structurally sound and not a potential danger. As far as it's appearance is concerned, I don't believe that anybody has the right to say it doesn't look right. We all have different tastes, we are all allowed to wear the clothes we choose, decide what foods we like and dislike, drive the cars we like, individuality is our right. As for building with no planning permission, it is their land, so I don't think anybody has the right to tell them what to do with it. Personally, I think that house is stunning and would not hesitate to live in a house like that, providing it has been built soundly.
If anybody knows of a petition to save this house, please link it so I can sign.
If anybody knows of a petition to save this house, please link it so I can sign.
Last edited:
I think Paulm has it right, it was about land use. and an abstraction to absurdity, I think I'll pop down to rural wales, buy some cheap plots of land from farmers, fire up 20 or so eco houses and sell them on, won't need planning permission, 'cos they're eco houses. I completely understand this is not the case here but the laws must be applied blindly (but hopefully with some interpretation ) It's a fantastic house built with the best of intentions and for the best of reasons but I suspect the reason they didn't apply is 'cos they wouldn't get it...
Oh and I think I may knock down my house on the main street when I retire and build a 5 storey block of flats.... (this nearly happened in my town, thankfully planning stopped it)
cheers
alan
) It's a fantastic house built with the best of intentions and for the best of reasons but I suspect the reason they didn't apply is 'cos they wouldn't get it...Oh and I think I may knock down my house on the main street when I retire and build a 5 storey block of flats.... (this nearly happened in my town, thankfully planning stopped it)
cheers
alan
Last edited: