Novel way to get round planning laws?

[Flyfisher]

Sadly, those days are long gone. Far too dangerous for 'elf & safety and too much planning - licences needed for the black powder, storage of hazardous materials regulations, building regs for strengthened roof to support the cannons, working at height regulations when installing them, operative training for loading and firing, training courses on how to safely lift heavy cannon balls . . . .

 

[middi]

Let us take immagination a bit further here. In order to beat the rap, Mr Fidler could, in a true democratic spirit of freedom create his own republic by fencing off his land and declare it an indipendend state. He could ,obviously, be the head of his state and therefore claim total immunity. The " TINY" drawback would be that he could never leave his land, but he could certainly defend it against OPPRESSORS coming in.

It goes on all over the world regularly, admittedly the weaker party always lose.

I am just thinking of a way he could, legally and on moral grounds, keep the building.

I cannot think of anyother way he could remedy his total c*ck up.

 

[Penners]

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

My sister had a horse, and my father built a stable for it out of straw bales. These were simply stacked up, brick-bond fashion. The roof was corrugated perspex laid over the top and scured to a light timber "plate" that was secured to the straw bales by driving long, pointed battens down into the bales.

There was no rendering of any kind, inside or outside.

The stable lasted 32 years, and would have gone on for longer if my parents hadn't sold the house, and the new owners torn the structure down as an "eyesore".

 

[ljn]

The deffinition of temporary structure seems to be a bit vague, as Chuckey points out.

If you can't easyly dismantle or move the structure it isn't 'temporary'.

In my Hackney years, businesses have often got away with structures by declkaring them 'temporary'
In my Italy days, they couldn't do this , as a temporary structure has to be dismantled for at least 3 months a year. That's why the external terraces of bars and restaurants dissappear in the winter and get re-assembled- they have to.

If a temporary structure had to be dismantled or moved every 9 months, we's see a lot les tarpaulin covered monstrosities around the country.

 

[CHRIS]

Maybe start up like here http://www.sealandnews.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation

I just hope for a massive fuss and huge expense by the local council - you know thats what will happen, all finishing with Mr Fidler in an armed siege just like the one in Wales over the fence issue

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_headline=fence-row-man-crossbow-threat-claim&method=full&objectid=19153058&siteid=50082-name_page.html

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Of course, he could just have applied for planning permission in the first like everyone else. (And he might have found the "country house clause" in PPS7 would have got him consent).

As it is, I hope they make him pull it down.

 

[Penners]

I hope they make him pull it down.

Seconded.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Different photo of it here which makes it look a little bit more made-up-as-he-went-along:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/24/nhouse124.xml

 

[Nemesis]

Shame you no longer require a licence to crenellate.

 

[Penners]

Shame you no longer require a licence to crenellate.

So long as it's between consenting adults.

Gareth's aditional photo link really brings home the sheer horror of the building.

council officials have insisted it must be bulldozed

Could that possibly be arranged while Mr Fidler is inside it?

 

[Nemesis]

I think it is actually constitutes an offence against architecture, as well as being built without permission on the Green Belt.

I suspect he won't win the inquiry.

If he does, maybe we can send the lads round witha 'dozer.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

A quick check of Reigate's planning website shows that Mr Fidler has a rather large number of current applications for "certificates of lawful use" at his property, for storage of HGVs and various haulage-related business activities. Plus use of land for jetskis, quadbikes etc etc.

I bet he's a delightful neighbour.

 

[Penners]

maybe we can send the lads round witha 'dozer.

I baggsy drive.

 

[Moo]

Will it have one of those big balls on the end of a chain? If so, can I have a go with it while Penners drives?

 

[Nemesis]

Meanwhile, back in Embra:

http://www.edinburghsucks.com/2007/04/27/bunty-backhander-and-the-wardie-crescent-development/

 

[Penners]

Will it have one of those big balls on the end of a chain? If so, can I have a go with it while Penners drives?

Naaah - none of yer girlie concrete yo-yos. This will be the real deal...

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Meanwhile, back in Embra:

http://www.edinburghsucks.com/2007/04/27/bunty-backhander-and-the-wardie-crescent-development/

I'm not sure that story really "shows...what most people believe, there is a bung system in the planning system," more that elected members don't know any better than Joe Public how the planning rules work, and ought to leave giving advice to the people the taxpayers actually pay to run the system (eg. me).

 

[Nemesis]

Or in Embra Mr Henderson, he of the Planning Dept, who thinks it's OK for developers to demolish listed buildings to make their crappy Caltongate development more viable.

In Embra, anything goes. Allegedly.

http://independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/



http://www.eh8.org.uk/

 

[Nemesis]

Anything goes in the City of Lunnon also (allegedly):

H:Conclusions
1.These applications are an attempt by the applicant and the City to drive a bulldozer preceded by a ball and chain through national and local heritage policies. This decision will be a test of the Government’s commitment to its heritage policies and a development plan led system of planning. It will also be a test of its commitment to participatory decision making. It will also be a test of its vision. It raises the question of whether the City is in effect, in the belief of which it appears to have acted, a plan free office zone. It is a decision which will be closely watched by landowners and developers. They will not view consents as unique but as a precedent.

2.If a well funded landowner with a substantial local estate such as the City of London can, with impunity, flagrantly flout national and local policies then local authorities throughout the kingdom, most of whom are subject to far greater financial pressure, will seek to do the same. Developers will seek
to make secret agreements of this kind. Landowners will neglect historic buildings in the hope of enjoying similar benefits.

Mr McCracken, for EH, in his summing up last week at the Smithfield Inquiry.

http://www.persona.uk.com/smithfield/EH_docs/add_docs/EH-23.pdf

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=725&storycode=3104834&c=1&encCode=000000000143db82

SAVE's submission:

http://www.persona.uk.com/smithfield/SAVE_docs/add_docs/SBH-10.pdf

 

[Flyfisher]

I wonder if Mr Fidler can harness the same level of public support (well, a 12 person Jury anyway) that this chap in Wales has just managed? It seems to have taken 26 years, mind.