Novel way to get round planning laws?

[Nigel Watts]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23434067-details/Hay+presto%21+Farmer+unveils+the+%27illegal%27+mock-Tudor+castle+he+tried+to+hide+behind+40ft+hay+bales/article.do

 

[Ian Bond]

Mr and Mrs Fid(d)ler - priceless!

 

[MdB]

They are not the first to try this:

http://new.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_newmarket/displayarticle.asp?id=197423

(and I thought it was 10 years that you had to live in it to get planning)

 

[Nemesis]

Yes, I thought I had read it before too!

Thanks!

 

[Flyfisher]

As one of the comments pointed out, none of the neighbours objected to the huge pile of bales and tarpaulins held down with old tyres for four years - or the two grain silos before that - but now they are all complaining about a house, which must surely be less obtrusive and certainly smaller than the pile of straw bales.

An interesting dilemma for the council.

 

[Nemesis]

No planning grounds to object to the silos and the bales (which are not permanent structures).

However, new buildings require permission.

 

[skier-hughes]

That may be the law side, but Fly is looking at the practicality side, which makes you laugh

 

[Nemesis]

Oh well, maybe they grumbled like hell into their beers, but as there was no-one to complain to about the bales we won't know.

Law is what counts. And hell yes I'd complain too. No reason why they should be able to get away with breaking it, is there?

 

[Mark]

Of course getting the building itself through would still only be half the story. For change of use of land they need more time, it is possible that he could retain it but only for agricultural use.

Nice for the cows.

 

[Flyfisher]

Perhaps they should just replace all the bales so no one can see the house? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?

And hell yes I'd complain too

I'm sure you would

 

[Schoolmarm]

Very, very funny.

Buillding regs people wouldn't be too impressed though.


"That included keeping their son Harry, now seven, away from playschool the day he was supposed to do a painting of his home in class" :lol:

 

[Penners]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?

And does the light really go off in your fridge when you close the door?

 

[Nemesis]

That included keeping their son Harry, now seven, away from playschool the day he was supposed to do a painting of his home in class

Yeah right - cos of course all playschool aged children can produce architectural drawing of the highest quality... and we believe every scribble to be accurate...

http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/DrawingsAndArchives/Drawings.aspx


.

 

[Cloudscape]

of course all playschool aged children can produce architectural drawing of the highest quality...

You might be right! The new builds in my area were designed by Orlando aged 3, and Kylie aged 3 and a half. The scribbly wax-crayon bit was interpreted as weatherboarding, and the squiggly criss-cross of felt pen became the trellis/thing by the front door.

 

[Nemesis]

The four year olds work for KPF...

http://www.persona.uk.com/smithfield/Thornfield_docs/proofs/TPL-3-A.pdf

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3104661&c=1

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=437&storycode=3104717&c=2&encCode=000000000143a93e

 

[DaveBrigg]

Perhaps he should have made the house from the straw bales instead? Would that count as a permanant structure?

 

[Nemesis]

Yes - if built according to building regs and with planning approval.


http://www.strawbalefutures.org.uk/

 

[chuckey]

The law is quite clear the building must be knocked down, it is wrong to profit from an illegal act.
It looks quite an interesting house, in general most areas would benefit from something like this rather then a Parrot house.
So how can one enforce the law and allow for the home to be used? One way of reconciling these two points would be:-
Mr Fiddler pays his Council sufficient cash for the house site to be cleared and restored to fields.
Mr Fiddler then gives his Council the house.
The Council allow Mr fiddler to live there rent free until his demise.
So Mr Fiddler can live in his house and it will be knocked down in due course and restored to fields. So nobody profits from the illegal building.
All buildings are temporary structures, some more so then others, so I don't see the difference in planning law. As many have said, the blue straw mountain, has been there for four years I am sure that its life could have been extended. So what are the planning laws trying to achieve, other then to stop people profitering by (hence encouraging) building eyesores?
Frank

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm not sure how the Fidlers have made any profit from this illegal act. I can't imagine the house is worth anything on the open market with the possibility of a demolition order hanging over it. Indeed, they stand to lose their home and the £50k spent on building it.

Presumably, the council must either insist on demolition or grant retrospective planning permission. But even if they eventually grant permission, there's no more 'profit' involved than with any other self-build is there?

 

[middi]

I think he should place a few cannons between the turrets and defend his castle like a true Englishman.