Hiding a house...

[Macro]

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.

Of course they are integral to a building operation.

Again, the wording is building OPERATION, which is not limited to just the physical laying of bricks. as I say, making the site secure and screening it is usually a requirement of a building operation.

I'm going to leave it there as to be honest you're not looking at this rationally any more and nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise.

Unless you were intimately involved let's just go with the decision being made by qualified people with vastly more detailed and accurate and pertinent information on the case than you or I.

 

[Glaucus]

Again, the wording is building OPERATION, which is not limited to just the physical laying of bricks. as I say, making the site secure and screening it is usually a requirement of a building operation.

It still has to be integral to the operation, which it isn't. If something is stated in law as being needed that would make it integral. Hiding it or a snack van is not integral to the operation. How can it be. Loads of buildings are erected without a snack van or hiding it. So yeah a portaloo probably is integral these days, wasn't some law releeased saying mobile workers havre to have toilet facilities.

yes I'm only going by what's in the article but that all we can go by.

As I said if the courts deemed it to be weather proofing or some other aspect of the building/operation. I would be fine with it.

 

[borich_planner]

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.

After one year development becomes lawful in terms of building regulations..

Borich

 

[HummuH1]

After one year development becomes lawful in terms of building regulations..

Borich

LoL. Like it. So if my matchstick house stands for 12 months then it automatically complies? That's quite worrying.

 

[Energize]

Shame that a beautiful house that adds much to the surrounding area will be destroyed because of some stupid planning law.

 

[Wicksta]

It still has to be integral to the operation, which it isn't.

Anything to back that statement up like previous cases etc?

 

[Macro]

Shame that a beautiful house that adds much to the surrounding area will be destroyed because of some stupid builder that thought he could get around the law rather than working within it.

Fixed

 

[Wicksta]

Shame that a beautiful house that adds much to the surrounding area will be destroyed because of some stupid planning law.

Oh come on, it's a fake mock tudor castle - I can imagine Katie Price building something similar.

 

[Glaucus]

Anything to back that statement up like previous cases etc?

Nope as I said I'm only going by what's in the article.

See this is how I see it

It does seem that he used a loophole to get around the law and rather than close the loophole they just decided to ignore it instead. Not really sure I agree with that.

 

[RDM]

It does seem that he used a loophole to get around the law and rather than close the loophole they just decided to ignore it instead. Not really sure I agree with that.

 

[HummuH1]

Shame that a beautiful house that adds much to the surrounding area will be destroyed because of some stupid planning law.

I'm not sure I'd agree that an illegal house with two grain silo's for the turret "wings" adds a great deal to the surrounding area tbh. Thankfully, those stupid planning laws are preventing **** like this doing it on a regular basis.

The only difference here is the building looks OK from the outside so people are prepared to debate. I suspect people would be less inclined to if it was a squinty half arsed number finished in old chocolate bar wrappers. Same deal at the end of the day.

 

[Glaucus]

The only difference here is the building looks OK from the outside so people are prepared to debate. I suspect people would be less inclined to if it was a squinty half arsed number finished in old chocolate bar wrappers. Same deal at the end of the day.

I would debate regardless of what the house looks like, as I said I don't care about the house or if it gets knocked down. The important bit is what the laws says and proofing it in a court. Something I feel they have not done (again only going by the article). We can't prove it but will convict you anyway, is not a good stance.

The other option is now it's come to light and shown what can be done, is to close the loop hole.

 

[Wicksta]

It does seem that he used a loophole to get around the law and rather than close the loophole they just decided to ignore it instead. Not really sure I agree with that.

Or is it that he used a loophole to get around the law, and the law used a loophole to get around his plan? Sounds fair to me.

 

[RDM]

Or is it that he used a loophole to get around the law, and the law used a loophole to get around his plan? Sounds fair to me.

Sounds a bit vindictive rather than fair.

 

[Wicksta]

Sounds a bit vindictive rather than fair.

Actually I don't agree. I hate people who circumvent procedures that normal people have to go through and then ending up getting away with it due to a technicality. For once this didn't happen.

 

[LOAM]

I find it really worrying that people find in "beautiful". Its absolutely hideous, Its archaic pastiche (if that's even possible). Its a crime against design, it really really is.

 

[Wicksta]

I find it really worrying that people find in "beautiful". Its absolutely hideous, Its archaic pastiche (if that's even possible). Its a crime against design, it really really is.

Can you imagine if it was a foreign family and they had built an equally ugly/out of place 'foreign' looking building - I imagine opinion here would be slightly different.

It looks like a chav's paradise.

 

[D D Danneh]

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

Borich

Yes, he may have built "what he wanted, where he wanted", but it's hardly like he sculpted something that was an eyesore on the landscape. Yes, he didn't get the planning permission like he should have, but does that really justify demolishing the whole thing? I'd say he's made that area look better than before. They should just whack a hefty fine on him and leave it be. Now if it had been a particularly ugly building, and probably devaluing every other house in the area, then that may be justification for knocking it down.

 

[Glaucus]

Actually I don't agree. I hate people who circumvent procedures

In that case throw the law book out the window. We have laws for a reason, we have courts for a reason. They have to be followed to the letter for a darn good reason.

 

[kwerk]

I find it really worrying that people find in "beautiful". Its absolutely hideous, Its archaic pastiche (if that's even possible). Its a crime against design, it really really is.

So what does your house look like then? Some poxy little barratt dollhouse? Maybe a pebble-dash council house? Or a smog stained industrial age terrace?

His land, his tastes, his house... MYOB.