Hiding a house...

[Glaucus]

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

If they showed that in court I would not have an issue with the decision.

But to try and say by simply hiding a building, it is part of it's construction is stupid. Placing bails is no different than building in a wood or other place people can not see in and do not go.

How about if someone planted a row of high trees. Then 20 years latter built a house. 10 years after that, cut the trees down.

As the judge says, there is no law against what he did. So they bent and broke another law to get the verdict they wanted.

"I accept that the act of concealment does not in itself provide a legitimate basis for the council to succeed, as hiding something does not take away lawful rights that may accrue due to the passage of time."

 

[edscdk]

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)

how the hell would you police that... I'm building a house for me on my land over there... I sold the plot next to it to my wife and she is building a house... the plot next to that is my bros', next to that is my mates... and so on... build a 4 story house then convert it to flats... before you know it you nice little village is surrounded by flats and you have sewers over flowing, power outages because there are now 500 more houses pulling power from the little power lines that went to your village..

Or everyone in your estate builds a house in their back garden and sells it so your extate is now total grid lock..

 

[rypt]

how the hell would you police that... I'm building a house for me on my land over there... I sold the plot next to it to my wife and she is building a house... the plot next to that is my bros', next to that is my mates... and so on... build a 4 story house then convert it to flats... before you know it you nice little village is surrounded by flats and you have sewers over flowing, power outages because there are now 500 more houses pulling power from the little power lines that went to your village..

Or everyone in your estate builds a house in their back garden and sells it so your extate is now total grid lock..

You police it via a proper planning process that does not favour the rich building contractor companies with deep pockets and connections ...

 

[semi-pro waster]

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.

That's surely a matter of subjective interpretation though as to what constitutes a monstrosity? What if the owner builds one house there and then decides six months down the line that they might as well build another four houses? At what point do you suddenly say "hold on, you're building an estate by stealth" and is it not a bit too late to stop it by that point?

If we want to keep green and open spaces then sometimes we're simply going to have to forbid planning consent being granted upon them.

If they showed that in court I would not have an issue with the decision.

But to try and say by simply hiding a building, it is part of it's construction is stupid. Placing bails is no different than building in a wood or other place people can not see in and do not go.

How about if someone planted a row of high trees. Then 20 years latter built a house. 10 years after that, cut the trees down.

Placing straw bales is different because the character of the act is inherently deceitful, Mr Fidler only had them there to hide the construction. If he'd built the castle in a place openly (albeit somewhere that few people could see) then maybe I'd be agreeing with you. As it is to allow him to keep the castle would be to reward dishonesty which is not a message I would want our legal system to condone.

If he'd planted trees for that specific purpose then I admire the foresight but again I'd suggest he should not be allowed to keep the building behind as the act and intention were deceitful.

 

[Glaucus]

but again I'd suggest he should not be allowed to keep the building behind as the act and intention were deceitful.

But as the judge said

"I accept that the act of concealment does not in itself provide a legitimate basis for the council to succeed, as hiding something does not take away lawful rights that may accrue due to the passage of time."

So they used a law for something it was not designed for that is utterly wrong

. As it is to allow him to keep the castle would be to reward dishonesty which is not a message I would want our legal system to condone.

So we should ignore the law and change it as and when needed?

 

[Beerbaron]

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.

Its was green belt land, land thats not meant to have houses built on it. We cant have people building houses everywhere and any where.

 

[rypt]

Its was green belt land, land thats not meant to have houses built on it. We cant have people building houses everywhere and any where.

We can perfectly have have the odd house here or there on green belt land, it adds to the character rather than having nothing but open fields.

 

[Glaucus]

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.

The planning laws are what they are, just like every other law and you have to deal with the consequences when they are broken.
However the planning permission in this case wasn't broken.

 

[MagicBoy]

The planning laws are what they are, just like every other law and you have to deal with the consequences when they are broken.
However the planning permission in this case wasn't broken.

There was no planning permission! How could he break an agreement that was never made?

 

[Glaucus]

There was no planning permission!

Doesn't matter, there are ways around it. They are specifically written into planning permission law. The 4 year rule is one of them.
So under the 4 year rule which is included in the planning permission legislation. He should have planning permission.

 

[Radiation]

If i had my own piece of land and wanted to build my own home and become self sufficient while not using money again i couldn't because the government wouldn't allow it, people don't realise just how controlled we really are when it gets right down to it, personal freedoms to this extent are not acceptable to those in control.

 

[MagicBoy]

Doesn't matter, there are ways around it. They are specifically written into planning permission law. The 4 year rule is one of them.

The High Court in this case says the 4 year rule doesn't apply. It's the highest court in the land so their decision works for me.

 

[Glaucus]

The High Court in this case says the 4 year rule doesn't apply. It's the highest court in the land so their decision works for me.

even when they are using something it wasn't intended to. If you think retrospective law or ignoring the wording of laws is good. Absolute madness.
What you are saying is it 's ok for the courts to do what ever they want regardless what the law is.

But you have the usual attitude, it doesn't affect me so who cares. Totally silly attitude to have.

 

[rypt]

It's the highest court in the land so their decision works for me.

EU court is higher, as are the Lords (or supreme as it is now)

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Should have kept the bails of hay. Think of the insulation he'd be getting!

On a serious note; I hate planning officers with a passion.

It took us 12 months to get a decision on our new build because of THEIR cockup (classed the house as rural development when it isn't), but did they correct it? Did they balls. Best we got was a "so sorry.. it'll be another 8-12 weeks now" on the phone.

We had to apply for a "bat survey", mining report, ground / soil samples, and it had to go through a full departure (meaning a local committee then a full committee) because of the cockup mentioned above. That's not to mention the other guff such as submitting samples of the exterior finishing for prior approval.

From buying the land to spade-in-ground has been a struggle. They even asked for us to lower the ridge height by 1m (effectively screwing over any plans for attic rooms) just because next door's house is slightly lower

I don't condone what this guy did, but they (planning officials) don't help themselves.

 

[MagicBoy]

The courts are protecting the public interest. To let this deceitful action be allowed to pass would set a precedent that would be bad for the entire country.

If he really wanted to keep the house the bales should have stayed up.

I've had enough of arguing this one, I'm off for some lunch!

 

[Glaucus]

The courts are protecting the public interest. To let this deceitful action be allowed to pass would set a precedent that would

I am not arguing that. As the judge himself said. What it would mean is that the council would have to back down and concealment would have to be written into the law. It only sets precedents if the law is not changed. What this now does is set precedents for the law to be abused by the courts.

"I accept that the act of concealment does not in itself provide a legitimate basis for the council to succeed, as hiding something does not take away lawful rights that may accrue due to the passage of time."

I have no problem as such with the house getting knocked down.
What I have a problem with is the law being abused by the courts.

 

[SC04]

No, instead, the government encourage planners and developers to cram the majority into tightly packed housing estates that all look the same. With if you're lucky, a garage that will just fit a old mini, a garden just big enough to swing a cat and front gardens/pavements turned into a car parks within 6 months.

When driving through Belgium, Holland and Germany, I can't help noticing how well spaced out many of their residential areas are, and two of those countries are supposed to be overcrowded. On paper maybe, but the 'realworld' quality of living looks better, even if they dont have vast spaces of Green belt for the minority to walk in.

 

[Wicksta]

When driving through Belgium, Holland and Germany, I can't help noticing how well spaced out many of their residential areas are, and two of those countries are supposed to be overcrowded. On paper maybe, but the 'realworld' quality of living looks better, even if they dont have vast spaces of Green belt for the minority to walk in.

I can only speak for Munich but far more people seem to live in apartments than houses over there, that's probably why they look so spaced out! Pretty much everyone in my last job lived in apartments (including with families) - I can't think of a single current colleague in my department that doesn't have a house in the UK and it's in the same job field and near London.

 

[LOAM]

I don't really care about how it came about anymore I just hope they televise the demolition of this monstrosity