Hiding a house...

[Greebo]

Planners do make some poor decisions though.

Case in point, the village I live in. Barn conversions must have stone tile roofs as that is traditional in the village despite new houses are allowed to be built with welsh slate and 75% of the roofs in the village are slate.

The other issues is define "traditional" anyway. In 1900 90% of the village roofs were thatched. To me "traditonal" is a matter of timing and a stronger case could be argued that everybody should use thatch. Of course, thatch got replaced as there were better building materials available like stone tiles and no planning permission needed to swap over to the superior material.

Then the same planners who are awkard over everything and won't allow even addtional windows installed, then pass a low cost housing development of 11 house where although the houses had a stone facia to match the village (all houses in the village are stone built) they then allowed them to have fake chimney stacks which were printed with a red brick pattern!

 

[JaffaJedi]

It looks better than most of the anemic housing estate styled houses that have popped up recently, or as I call them human battery farms.

 

[Stretch]

It would be a crying shame to knock the house down but I supose the rules are rules.

 

[semi-pro waster]

But as the judge said


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



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

When you quote the judge about whether hiding the construction not interfering with the legitimate accrual of rights over time you seemingly ignore that he also found in favour of the planning inspectors view that the bales were an integral part of the construction.

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...

I'd say that was quite unequivocal in what it covers. This is not ignoring the law nor is it using it to cover something that it is not intended to.

However I will note that there are occasions where I disagree with a judge and think that they have decided wrongly, overall in this case I'd say it was the correct decision but I do disagree with the reasoning that you keep highlighting in support of your case. Where the obsfucation is made with a deceitful intent then that should not allow the accretion of rights as would any other normal situation.

 

[Glaucus]

I'd say that was quite unequivocal in what it covers. This is not ignoring the law nor is it using it to cover something that it is not intended to.
.

It was not integral to the construction. It played no part in the construct. It was and did hide the property though sand as the judge said himself merely hiding it intentionally is not against the law.
Please explain how it is integral for the construction? It is integral only to keep the property not to construct it. Two extremely different things.

I only ignored what else the judge said as we know the outcome. Also pretty sure I quoted that part early.

"

"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.

 

[Bennie-Mac]

I dont condone what the guy did, but in my opinion all planning officers are tools. My granny moved into a small house about 8 years ago and wanted a garage to be built for her car, she was denied twice. She eventually got permission the 3rd time, despite the fact that her two neighbours on each side live in the exact same size and style of house, and both built garages in the same position where my granny was putting hers, less than a year before she 1st applied.

 

[HummuH1]

Good. Building a "mock" castle using two grain silo's FFS.

Don't see how you can agrue against it. He's clearly gone at it with a mind to bypassing all planning and more importantly IMO building control reg's or whatever you call them In England. It's illegal and potentially dangerous. Tit.

 

[Macro]

It was not integral to the construction. It played no part in the construct. It was and did hide the property though sand as the judge said himself merely hiding it intentionally is not against the law.
Please explain how it is integral for the construction? It is integral only to keep the property not to construct it. Two extremely different things.

I only ignored what else the judge said as we know the outcome. Also pretty sure I quoted that part early.

You are missing the point entirely. The bales were a part of the building "OPERATIONS" and so the building operation was ruled not to have been completed until the last part of the operations, that bales were removed. The builder quite openly admitted the only reason for the bales being there were to as part of the over all construction project. Their role was to conceal the work in much the same way as hordings might be erected in a town around a building site to conceal building work.

Nowhere in the ruling did it make any mention of the bales being integral to the physical day to day construction.

If you try to be clever by getting around a law using exact wording and loop holes don't be surprised when the other side holds you to the same standards.

 

[Glaucus]

Don't see how you can agrue against it.Tit.

quite easily. Written into the law allows for circumstances where you keep property with out building regs. That loop hole was used. It makes no diffident that he did it intentionally.

To try to argue that straw bails where integral to the construction is utterly silly and smacks of desperation by the courts.

snip

How is it integral to the operation, it is not. As the judge said merely hiding the fact does not make it against the law.

 

[Macro]

Because the bales were erected as part of the building operation. Their role was to hide the work. They don't have to be physically holding something up to be part of the building operation. The snack van at a building site or portaloo isn't physically building a house and yet it's obviously part of the building operations for the duration it's there.

 

[Glaucus]

The snack van at a building site or portaloo isn't physically building a house and yet it's obviously part of the building operations for the duration it's there.

That's where I disagree. It is not part of the building operation in the slightest. It is there to provide a service to the builders. Not to the project. Why do you think a building is only complete when the snack van rolls away. The building is complete when the construction is finished and all construction tools and devices are removed.
The bails in a similar way had nothing to do with the project and everything to do with hiding the building, they are not a building aid, tool or part of the property. Something which is not written into the law.

Oh I found a screw driver buried in a portioning wall. Oh that must mean the construction hasn't finished yet.

 

[HummuH1]

quite easily. Written into the law allows for circumstances where you keep property with out building regs. That loop hole was used. It makes no diffident that he did it intentionally.

Anything can be argued, doesn't mean it's right.

I ask this question genuinely as I don't know the answer, but do the circumstances where properties can be kept out with building regs apply to residential dwellings?

 

[Glaucus]

doesn't mean it's right.

, but do the circumstances where properties can be kept out with building regs apply to residential dwellings?

It's not right, it's just not against the law.

And yes these laws apply to buildings that you physically live in for 4 years.

 

[Macro]

The Bails were solely erected as part of the building operation with the role of hiding the work. The role could have been as somewhere for the builders to sit, it doesn't matter.

The only reason they were erected there was as part of the building operations, not for any other reason. Are you honestly trying to suggest 15 foot hordings or chain fencing around a building site in town are not part of the building operations, they just happen to be there? In fact most building operations insist a site is made secure and screened as part of the project.

Give it up

 

[HummuH1]

Why do you think a building is only complete when the snack van rolls away. The building is complete when the construction is finished and all construction tools and devices are removed.

Again, I ask this genuinely as I only know of the Scottish reqts, but surely a building is finished when the appropriate completion and habitation certificates have been issued by the local authority, not when the builder has left site?

 

[Glaucus]

The Bails were solely erected as part of the building operation with the role of hiding the work. The role could have been as somewhere for the builders to sit, it doesn't matter.

How is it integral. That's the important bit. Integral and fundamental. not any thing used lke a snack shop. As that is not integral.
Certainly makes more sense the way you have put it. But it has to be Integral and fundamental to the construction. Which it clearly is not. Fences are boarding are not integral to a worksite. Boarding over a window however would be as it's waterproofing and serves a purpose.

Could building work happen and continue without straw bails = Yes, therefore it is in no way integral.
Could he of lived there for 4 years without the bails = No, but then hiding it, is not against the law.

 

[HummuH1]

It's not right, it's just not against the law.

And yes these laws apply to buildings that you physically live in for 4 years.

I'm really not having a go! But surely that's planning you refer to not building regs? The planning issue is one thing, the main topic here, but I'd have thought it still has to comply, even retrospetively, with building regs?

I can't quite understand how if you "lived" in a place for 4 years that automatically means it satisfies building regs.

 

[Glaucus]

but I'd have thought it still has to comply, even retrospetively, with building regs?
.

I would have thought so. But this is planning.

 

[bledd]

Planning permission is bull crap, it's all about 'who you know' when it comes to planning permission

 

[HummuH1]

I would have thought so. But this is planning.

Indeed, that was the point of my intial post. Not only has he done it without planning consent, he's also done it without building regs approval, meaning it's potentially dangerous. Nothwithstanding the fact it's pretty much totally worthless without building regs approval.