Hiding a house...

[Glaucus]

thinking he could exploit a loophole.

Laws should not be changed retrospectively. There was a loop hole written into the law intentionally or not. It smacks of changing the law after the event, which is a bad thing.

At which point were the local council not going to prosecute him and send in the Bulldozers?

When it got thrown out of court when it was found to be legal. Just like in every other case where a loop hole is used.

 

[MagicBoy]

Laws should not be changed retrospectively. There was a loop hole written into the law intentionally or not. It smacks of changing the law after the event, which is a bad thing.

I'll clarify - the guy that built the house thought it was a loophole. High Court says it isn't and I agree with their reasoning.

Hiding the building site behind hay bales is part of the construction process. It's the same as putting scaffolding up in my opinion.

 

[Glaucus]

High Court says it isn't and I agree with their reasoning.
.

How is tarpaulin and bails construction work. It is not used to climb on like scalfolding. It is not fixed to the building in anyway. Or used in the construction process in anyway shape or form.

He should get to keep it and the law should be changed saying you can not hide a structure in the construction stage.

 

[rypt]

Without us planners this country would be a mess, everyone building what they want where the want..

You mean how for centuries people built houses on land that they owned ... "planning permission" (in the current sense) if a very modern thing useful only in lining someones pockets

 

[MagicBoy]

How is trampoline and bails construction work. it is not used to climb on. it is not fixed to the building in anyway. or used in the construction process.

What the hell has a trampoline got to do with it?

 

[semi-pro waster]

The ****?



Also it's a very nice castle.

Straw bales were only there to shield the building from view for the 4 odd years necessary, the argument is therefore that they were integral to the building works and by implication the removal of them also would be.

While it may seem harsh Mr Fidler quite deliberately hid the building in an attempt to take advantage of a loophole in planning law rather than openly requesting planning permission as he should have. To allow this ruse to succeed would be contrary to the intent of the planning regulations so the correct decision has been reached and it's not changing the law retrospectively.

Whether planning regulations and planning authorities could be less obstructive and more sensible in their approach to certain issues is another matter entirely. For my money there are areas where planning law and the authorities could take a much more reasoned approach but that's not the subject of the instant case.

 

[Glaucus]

meant to be tarpaulin

the argument is therefore that they were integral to the building works and by implication the removal of them also would be.

I don't see how. It offered nothing for construction. It is not any form of construction technique or use.

If they could prove he used to straw bails in a way similar to scaffolding or some other thing actually linked to the construction fair enough. Until that is proved it in no way can be deemed construction work.

 

[MagicBoy]

meant to be tarpaulin

Epic fail there then

Semi-pro's post above yours sums it up so I'm not going to repeat it!

 

[rypt]

Whether planning regulations and planning authorities could be less obstructive and more sensible in their approach to certain issues is another matter entirely. For my money there are areas where planning law and the authorities could take a much more reasoned approach but that's not the subject of the instant case.

Yes it is the subject in this case, if planning laws were better then he could have built his house there without having to hide it.

 

[Glaucus]

Epic fail there then

Semi-pro's post above yours sums it up so I'm not going to repeat it!

I don't see how. It offered nothing for construction. It is not any form of construction technique or use and as far as I can tell was not used in any construction way.

If they could prove he used to straw bails in a way similar to scaffolding or some other thing actually linked to the construction fair enough. Until that is proved it in no way can be deemed construction work.

It is no different than trying to convict speeders where the gatso has not been calibrated or any other loop hole. Totally wrong.

If they tried to show and proved it was used in the construction process I would have no problem with the decision. But As far as I can tell they have not.

"In my view, the inspector's findings of fact make it abundantly clear that the erection/removal of the straw bales was an integral - indeed an essential - fundamentally related part of the building operations that were

No, it had nothing to do with the construction. The construction could be built without it. It was used to hide the building. Two very different things.

 

[MagicBoy]

Yes it is the subject in this case, if planning laws were better then he could have built his house there without having to hide it.

I doubt it. It's on Green Belt farmland, not some residential street in a small village.

Green belt is an area of undeveloped, wild, or agricultural land surrounding or neighbouring urban areas. A green belt is basically an invisible line that goes around a certain area, stopping people from building there so that some of the wild and agricultural land can be saved.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I think that if the council want it torn down, then they must do it using people in period dress and using trebuchets and catapults

 

[rypt]

I doubt it. It's on Green Belt farmland, not some residential street in a small village.

Which is still an issue, why should you not be allowed to build the odd house on the Green Belt? We are not talking about building a whole estate, just the odd house on private land.
For centuries houses were build by people on land they own without all this green belt nonsense.
If anything having the odd house here or there, or the odd hamlet ADDS to the character of the country side (provided houses are not build like stupid 4 storey brick monstrosities)

 

[Tefal]

The ****?

(

He put the straw bales there to make sure no one noticed it whole it was built for 4 years, so yeah they clearly are part of the construction plan.

 

[MagicBoy]

I think that if the council want it torn down, then they must do it using people in period dress and using trebuchets and catapults

Where do I sign up? I like a good Trebuchet demolition!

 

[Tefal]

meant to be tarpaulin


I don't see how. It offered nothing for construction. It is not any form of construction technique or use.

If they could prove he used to straw bails in a way similar to scaffolding or some other thing actually linked to the construction fair enough. Until that is proved it in no way can be deemed construction work.

Without the tarpaulin and hay bails the house could not have been built as it would have been ordered to be torn down/halted before the end of construction.

hence they where essential to construction.

 

[Glaucus]

He put the straw bales there to make sure no one noticed it whole it was built for 4 years, so yeah they clearly are part of the construction plan.

How? it was not used in construction.

Hiding it is in no way or shape related to construction. It is two very different things and as such should be treated separately.
But it was not essential in construction, that's the thing. He could have built it without the bails. Chances are he would have finished it before being ordered to knock it down.

 

[MagicBoy]

Which is still an issue, why should you not be allowed to build the odd house on the Green Belt? We are not talking about building a whole estate, just the odd house on private land.
For centuries houses were build by people on land they own without all this green belt nonsense.
If anything having the odd house here or there, or the odd hamlet ADDS to the character of the country side (provided houses are not build like stupid 4 storey brick monstrosities)

If he was knocking down and replacing a working farmhouse and the new building fitted with the area then I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem. Building yourself a mock tudor mansion/castle hybrid (and hiding it behind a pile of straw bales) doesn't quite tick the boxes.

No, it had nothing to do with the construction. The construction could be built without it. It was used to hide the building. Two very different things.

I'd be quite happy to argue weather protection. That's what scaffolding and tarpaulins are commonly used for here.

 

[semi-pro waster]

meant to be tarpaulin


I don't see how. It offered nothing for construction. It is not any form of construction technique or use.

If they could prove he used to straw bails in a way similar to scaffolding or some other thing actually linked to the construction fair enough. Until that is proved it in no way can be deemed construction work.

Two distinct ways to argue it and it may be both apply. 1) The bales (and tarpaulin) offered protection from the elements which allowed the construction of the castle which would otherwise have been provided by scaffolding and other materials or 2) the bales were only there to shield the construction from view and without them the project would have been spotted and an injuction against building granted long before the four years were up.

Either way there is a strong argument that they are integral to the construction.

Yes it is the subject in this case, if planning laws were better then he could have built his house there without having to hide it.

Not all that likely, green belt land is difficult to get permission to build upon. I'm not certain (perhaps Mr planner could confirm) but I've got a vague suspicion that generally the land would have to be re-zoned before it could be built upon - if that is the case then it's not possible to take a reasoned approach when it is forbidden on a blanket basis until/unless the re-zoning happens.

 

[rypt]

If he was knocking down and replacing a working farmhouse and the new building fitted with the area then I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem. Building yourself a mock tudor mansion/castle hybrid (and hiding it behind a pile of straw bales) doesn't quite tick the boxes.

Not all that likely, green belt land is difficult to get permission to build upon. I'm not certain (perhaps Mr planner could confirm) but I've got a vague suspicion that generally the land would have to be re-zoned before it could be built upon - if that is the case then it's not possible to take a reasoned approach when it is forbidden on a blanket basis until/unless the re-zoning happens.

The "Green Belt" designation is still part of the same planning permission argument, someone, somewhere, stupidly decided that nothing can be built on this so called "Green Belt" (hasn't stopped Oxford City Council allowing for 200odd £400k minimum houses being built on "Green Land" a few years ago).

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if it is green, purple, yellow, red or orange land. If it is privately owned, and the person is not trying to build some monstrosity and it is not a huge estate of new houses then they should be allowed to build.